wsSanSs 


iiiiiliiiife 


BCSB  LIBRARY      ^^  #^^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/freepressantholoOOschriala 


FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 


COMPILED 


THEODORE    SCHROEDER 


Published  by 
THE    FREE    SPEECH    LEAGUE,     120    LEXINGTON    AVENUE 

AND 

THE  TRUTH    SEEKER    PUBLISHING  CO.,   62  VESEY  STREET 

NEW    YORK    CITY 

1909. 


CopyrigM,  1909,  by  Theodore  Schroeder 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 


Sec.  I.     The   Areopagitica,    John   Milton,. 1 

Preface    to    "Liberty    of    Unhcensed    Printing," 
Thomson, 18 

Sec.  IL     Further  Important  Defenses  of  Free  Speech,  20. 

Spim)z;i,  "iO.  John  Ixx-ke,  23.  Voltaire,  28.  Frieiuls  of  Free 
In«|iiirv,  .'50.  Friends  to  the  Liberty  of  the  Pres.s,  'i\.         Hev.'-Rol)ert 

Hall.   31.         'J'honias    Erskine,   33.  Tunis   Wortnian,   30.         Jeremy 

Bent  ham,  38.  Thoma.s  Ctxjper,  -K).  John  Stuart  Mill,  44.  Thomas 
Henrv  Huxlev,  75.  Herbert  Spencer,  76.  George  Jacob  Holyoake, 
80.     ■    W.  h!  H.  Lecky,  81. 

Sec.  III.     Laconics  of  Toleration  and  Free  Inquiry,. . .  .86 

Sec.  IV.     An   Explanation  Concerning  Obscenities,  Peter 
Bayle, 114 

Sec.  V.     The  Modern  Censorship  of  Obscenity, 149. 

Louis  F.  Post,  149.  RoVjert  Buchanan,  162.  B.  O.  Flower,  167. 
Theodoi-e  Schroeder.  171.  Edwin  C.  Walker,  176.  John  Ru.s.sell 
Coryell,    178.         The  New   York   Home  Journal,    181. 

Sec.  VI.     Briefer  Defenses  of  Free  Sex-Discussion,.  .  .  .185 

The  Case  of  Moses  Harman,  210.         The  Case  of  D.  M.  Bennett,  21.3. 

Sec.  VII.     Liberty  of  Conscience  and  Speech  for  Anarch- 
ists,  225 

Appendix 249 

Theodore    Schroeder;    Censorship    of    Sex-Literature. 


The  concealment   of  truth  is  the  only   indecorum   known  to 
science. — Westermarck. 


INTRODUCTION 


AWjW  years  ago  I  went  to  a  public  library  containing  250,()0(/ 
volumes,  and  found  in  its  catalogue  only  two  items  indexed  under 
freedom  of  speech  and  press.  In  several  smaller  libraries  nothing  upon 
this  subject  was  found.  Such  conditions  evidence  a  supine  and  lethargic 
security  which  is  ever  the  best  possible  encouragement  for  the  destroyers 
of  liberty.  I  was  therefore  partially  preparetl  for  another  extraordinary 
discovery. 

A  comparative  study  of  the  laws  persua<led  me  that,  notwithstanding 
our  paper  constitutions  to  the  contrary,  liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press, 
in  some  parts  of  the  United  States,  is  now  abridged  to  a  greater  extent 
than  it  is  in  England,  or  was,  even  a  century  ago.  While  the  cruelty  of 
the  penalties  has  been  much  relaxed,  the  number  of  penalized  ideas  has 
been  increased.  Now,  as  then,  these  repressive  laws  are  not  generally 
enforced,  but  are  always  readily  and  successfully  invoked  against  j^er- 
sons  who  have  othenvise  made  themselves  unpopular.  Furthermore, 
the  uncertainty  of  the  criteria  of  guilt,  in  these  censorial  laws,  has  been 
materially  increased,  in  spite  of  our  constitutionial  guarantees  against 
(constructive  crimes.  The  arbitrariness  of  the  lawless  suppression  of 
free  speech  by  ignorant,  hysterical,  and  tyrannical  police  officers,  and 
through  the  extension  of  executive  process  and  government  by  injunct- 
ions, and  the  unjust  discrimination  manifested  in  the  exercise  of  a  lawless 
discretion  on  the  part  of  municipal  executives  and  our  quasi-official 
moralists  for  revenue,  should  be  apparent  and  abhorrent  to  all  who  view 
current  events  with  an  earnest  and  intelligent  desii'e  to  promote  truth, 
justice,  and  liberty. 

The  most  discouraging  feature  of  this  state  of  facts  arises  from  the 
total  absence  of  anything  like  a  formidable  protest.  Where  in  Englaad 
a  century  ago  riots  resulted  from  attempts  to  enforce  laws  abridging 
free  speech,  and  the  right  of  free  assembly,  the  present  American  public- 
views  such  conduct  with  utter  indifference.  Although  the  repression 
is  often  unwarranted  even  by  an  unconstitutional  statute,  yet,  in  most 
instances,  the  mass  of  the  public  applauds  this  official  lawlessness. 
About  a  century  ago  the  American  love  of  liberty  Avas  such  that  the  pas- 
saire  of  the  Alien  and  Sedition  law  resulted  in  the  defeat  of  the  Whiff 


viii.  INTRODUCTION 

party.  To-day  similar  and  more  pernicious  statutes  receive  all  hut  gen- 
eral apjjroval,  so  has  our  love  of  constitutional  liherty  dejijenerated. 

This  deplorable  condition  of  the  public  indifference  to  the  facts,  and 
the  unconsciousness  of  their  wrong,  or  of  the  future  import  of  these 
precedents  abridging  free  utterance,  together  with  the  quite  general  ju- 
dicial indorsement  of  this  abridged  freedom,  make  such  a  book  as  this 
an  unappreciated  necessity,  and  useful  in  spite  of  its  many  defects, 
simply  because  it  is  the  only  thing  of  its  kind  in  existance. 

A  few  words  of  explanation  are  necessary  as  to  the  contents  of  the  book 
itself.  The  great  diversity  of  spelling,  capitalization,  and  punctuation 
to  be  found  is  due  to  my  endeavor  to  reproduce  as  closely  as  possible 
the  method  of  expression  as  well  as  the  thought  of  the  writers,  of  different 
times  and  countries.  In  the  matter  quoted,  very  little  will  be  found 
which  antedates  Milton.  The  reason  is  that  I  discovered  nothing  be- 
longing to  that  earlier  period  which  extendedly  defends  unabridged  free- 
dom of  speech.  The  chief  arguments  of  that  time  may  be  thus  summa- 
rized : 

I.  We  heretics  are  biblically  correct,  therefore  should  be  tolerated; 

II.  The  Bible  commands  toleration,  therefore  we  should  be  tolerated. 
Those  who  are  interested  in  these  "first  articulations  of  infant  liberty" 

are  referred  to  a  collected  reprint  of  them  by  The  Hansard  Knollys 
Society,  in  a  large  volume  entitled,  "Tracts  on  Liberty  of  Conscience 
and  Persecution.     1614-1661,"  published  in  I^ondon,  1846. 

The  present  volume  is  also  defective  in  that  it  contains  no  adequate 
discussions  of  the  free  speech  issues  as  related  to  its  present-day  abridg- 
ments. At  the  end  of  this  volume  will  be  found  a  bibliography  of  recent 
magazine  literature  in  relation  to  some  of  these  later-day  problems. 
These  articles  are  seldom  quoted  from  herein,  for  the  reason  that  the 
present  writer  is  the  author  of  most  of  them,  and  it  is  intended  soon  to 
})ublish  these  in  a  separate  volume. 

Theodore  Schroeder. 

Nciv   York  City. 


FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 


SECTION    I. 

MILTON'S     AREOPAGITICA 

[1644] 


Editorial  Note. — Owing  to  the  historical  importance  of  this  immortal  essay  practically  all 
of  it  is  here  reproduced. 

HE  WHO  freely  magnifies  what  hath  been  nobly  done,  and  fears 
not  to  declare  as  freely  what  might  be  done  better,  gives  ye  the 
best  covenant  of  his  fidelity;  and  that  his  loyalest  aflFection  and  his 
hope  waits  on  your  proceedings. 

.  .  .  That  clause  of  Licensing  Books,  which  we  thought  had  died 
with  his  brother  quadragesimal  and  matrimonial*  when  the  prelates 
expired,  I  shall  now  attend  with  such  a  homily,  as  shall  lay  before  ye, 
first  the  inventors  of  it,  to  be  those  whom  ye  will  be  loth  to  own ;  next 
what  is  to  be  thought  in  general  of  reading,  whatever  sort  the  books  be ; 
and  that  this  Order  avails  nothing  to  the  suppressing  of  scandalous, 
seditious,  and  Ubellous  books,  which  were  mainly  intended  to  be  sup- 
pressed. Last,  that  it  will  be  primely  to  the  discouragement  of  all 
learning,  and  the  stop  of  Truth,  not  only  by  disexercising  and  blunting 
our  abilities  in  what  we  know  already,  but  by  hindering  and  cropping 
the  discovery  that  might  be  yet  further  made  both  in  religious  and  civil 
Wisdom. 

.  ,  .  Unless  wariness  be  used,  as  good  almost  kill  a  man  as  kill  a 
good  book:  who  kills  a  man  kills  a  reasonable  creature,  God's  image; 
but  he  who  destroys  a  good  book,  kills  reason  itself,  kills  the  image  of 
God,  as  it  were  in  the  eye.  Many  a  man  lives  a  burden  to  the  earth; 
but  a  good  book  is  the  precious  life-blood  of  a  master  spirit,  embalmed 
and  treasured  up  on  purpose  to  a  hfe  beyond  life.  'Tis  true,  no  age 
can  restore  a  life,  whereof  perhaps  there  is  no  great  loss;  and  revolu- 
tions of  ages  do  not  oft  recover  the  loss  of  a  rejected  truth,  for  the  want 

^Quadragesimal  and  matrimonial.  Ecclesiastical  Orders  as  to  the  keeping  of  Lent  and 
Marriage  Ceremonial.  Milton  held  that  there  was  no  ground  in  Scripture  for  the  claim 
of  an  ecclesiastical  control  over  the  civil  contract  of  marriage. 


2  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

of  which  whole  nations  fare  the  worse.  We  should  be  wary  therefore 
what  persecution  we  raise  against  the  living  labours  of  public  men,  how 
we  spill  that  seasoned  life  of  man,  preserved  and  stored  up  in  books; 
since  we  see  a  kind  of  homicide  may  be  thus  committed,  sometimes  a 
martyrdom,  and  if  it  extend  to  the  whole  impression,  a  kind  of  massacre, 
whereof  the  execution  ends  not  in  the  slaying  of  an  elemental  life,  but 
strikes  at  that  ethereal  and  fifth  essence,  the  breath  of  reason  itself;  slays 
an  immortality  rather  than  a  Ufe.  But  lest  I  should  be  condemned  of 
introducing  hcence,  while  I  oppose  Ucensing,  I  refuse  not  the  pains  to 
be  so  much  historical,  as  will  serve  to  show  what  hath  been  done  by  an- 
cient and  famous  commonwealths,  against  this  disorder,  till  the  very 
time  that  this  project  of  licensing  crept  out  of  the  Inquisition,  was 
catched  up  by  our  prelates,  and  hath  caught  some  of  our  presbyters.  .  .  . 
Sometimes  five  Imprimaturs  are  seen  together  dialogue  wise  in  the 
piazza  of  one  title-page,  complimenting  and  ducking  each  to  other  with 
their  shaven  reverences,  whether  the  author  who  stands  by  in  perplexity 
at  the  foot  of  his  epistle,  shall  to  the  press  or  to  the  sponge.  These  are 
the  pretty  responsories,  these  are  the  dear  antiphonies,  that  so  bewitched 
of  late  our  Prelates  and  their  chaplains  with  the  goodly  echo  they  made ; 
and  besotted  us  to  the  gay  imitation  of  a  lordly  Imprimatur,  one  from 
Lambeth  House,  another  from  the  west  end  of  Paul's;  so  apishly  ro- 
manising,  that  the  word  of  command  still  was  set  down  in  Latin ;  as  if 
the  learned  grammatical  pen  that  wrote  it  would  cast  no  ink  without 
Latin;  or  perhaps,  as  they  thought,  because  no  vulgar  tongue  was 
worthy  to  express  the  pure  conceit  of  an  Imprimatur;  but  rather,  as  I 
hope,  for  that  our  English,  the  language  of  men,  ever  famous  and  fore- 
most in  the  achievements  of  liberty,  will  not  easily  find  servile  letters 
enow  to  spell  such  a  dictatory  presumption  English.  And  thus  ye  have 
the  inventors  and  the  original  of  book-licensing  ripped  up  and  drawn 
as  lineally  as  any  pedigree.  We  have  it  not,  that  can  be  heard  of,  from 
any  ancient  state,  or  polity,  or  church,  nor  by  any  statute  left  us  by  our 
ancestors  elder  or  later;  nor  from  the  modern  custom  of  any  reformed 
city  or  church  abroad ;  but  from  the  most  anti-christian  council  and  the 
most  tyrannous  inquisition  that  ever  inquired.  Till  then  books  were 
ever  as  freely  admitted  into  the  world  as  any  other  birth;  the  issue  of 
the  brain  was  no  more  stifled  than  the  issue  of  the  womb;  no  envious 
Juno  sat  cross-legged  over  the  nativity  of  any  man's  intellectual  offspring; 
but  if  it  proved  a  monster,  who  denies,  but  that  it  was  justly  burnt,  or 
sunk  into  the  sea?  But  that  a  book  in  worse  condition  than  a  peccant 
soul,  should  be  to  stand  before  a  jury  ere  it  be  bom  to  the  world,  and 
undergo  yet  in  darkness  the  judgment  of  Radamanth  and  his  colleagues,^ 
ere  it  can  pass  the  ferry  backward  into  light,  was  never  heard  before, 
till  that  mysterious  iniquity,  provoked  and  troubled  at  the  first  entrance 
of  Reformation,  sought  out  new  limbos  and  new  hells  wherein  they 


MILTON'S  AREOPAGITICA  8 

might  include  our  books  also  within  the  number  of  their  damned.  And 
this  was  the  rare  morsel  so  officiously  snatched  up,  and  so  ill-favouredly 
imitated  by  our  inquisiturient  bishops,  and  the  attendant  minorities 
their  chaplains.  That  ye  like  not  now  these  most  certain  authors  of 
this  licensing  order,  and  that  all  sinister  intention  was  far  distant  from 
your  thoughts,  when  ye  were  importuned  the  passing  it,  all  men  who 
know  the  integrity  of  your  actions,  and  how  ye  honour  Truth,  will  clear 
ye  readily. 

But  some  will  say.  What  though  the  inventors  were  bad,  the  thing  for 
all  that  may  be  good  ?  It  may  be  so ;  yet  if  that  thing  be  no  such  deep 
invention,  but  obvious,  and  easy  for  any  man  to  light  on,  and  yet  best 
and  wisest  commonwealths  through  all  ages  and  occasions  have  for- 
borne to  use  it,  and  falsest  seducers  and  oppressors  of  men  were  the 
first  who  took  it  up,  and  to  no  other  purpose  but  to  obstruct  and  hinder 
the  first  approach  of  Reformation ;  I  am  of  those  who  believe  it  will  be 
a  harder  alchymy  than  Lullius  ever  knew,  to  sublimate  any  good  use 
out  of  such  an  invention.  Yet  this  only  is  what  I  request  to  gain  from 
this  reason,  that  it  may  be  held  a  dangerous  and  susjMcious  fruit,  as  cer- 
tainly it  deserves,  for  the  tree  that  bore  it,  until  I  can  dissect  one  by  one 
the  properties  it  has.  But  I  have  first  to  finish,  as  was  propounded. 
What  is  to  be  thought  in  general  of  reading  books,  whatever  sort  they 
be,  and  whether  be  more  the  benefit  or  the  harm  that  thence  proceeds  ? 

Not  to  insist  upon  the  examples  of  Moses,  Daniel,  and  Paul,  who 
were  skilful  in  all  the  learning  of  the  Egj^tians,  Chaldeans,  and  Greeks, 
which  could  not  probably  be  without  reading  their  books  of  all  sorts, 
in  Paul  especially,  who  thought  it  no  defilement  to  insert  into  Holy 
Scripture  the  sentences  of  three  Greek  poets,  and  one  of  them  a  tragedian, 
the  question  was  notwithstanding  sometimes  controverted  among  the 
primitive  doctors,  but  with  great  odds  on  that  side  which  affirmed  it  both 
lawful  and  profitable,  as  was  then  evidently  perceived,  when  Julian  the 
Apostate  and  subtlest  enemy  to  our  faith,  made  a  decree  forbidding 
Christians  the  study  of  heathen  learning:  for,  said  he,  they  wound  us 
with  our  own  weapons,  and  with  our  own  arts  and  sciences  they  over- 
come us.  And  indeed  the  Christians  were  put  so  to  their  shifts  by  this 
crafty  means,  and  so  much  in  danger  to  decline  into  all  ignorance,  that 
the  two  Apollinarii  were  fain,  as  a  man  may  say,  to  coin  all  the  seven 
liberal  sciences  out  of  the  Bible,  reducing  it  into  divers  forms  of  orations, 
poems,  dialogues,  even  to  the  calculating  of  a  new  Christian  grammar. 

Dionysius  Alexandrinus  was  about  the  year  240,  a  person  of  great 
name  in  the  Church  for  piety  and  learning,  who  had  wont  to  avail  him- 
self much  against  heretics  by  being  conversant  in  their  books;  until  a 
certain  presbyter  laid  it  scrupulously  to  his  conscience,  how  he  durst 
venture  himself  among  those  defiling  volumes.     The  worthy  man,  loth 


4  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

to  give  offence,  fell  into  a  new  debate  with  himself  what  was  to  be  thought ; 
when  suddenly  a  vision  sent  from  God  (it  is  his  own  epistle  that  so  avers 
it)  confirmed  him  in  these  words:  Read  any  books  whatever  come  to 
thy  hands,  for  thou  art  suflScient  both  to  judge  aright,  and  to  examine 
each  matter.  To  this  revelation  he  assented  the  sooner,  as  he  con- 
fesses, because  it  was  answerable  to  that  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians.  Prove  all  things,  hold  fast  that  which  is  good.  And  he  might 
have  added  another  remarkable  saying  of  the  same  author:  To  the  pure, 
all  things  are  pure;  not  only  meats  and  drinks,  but  all  kind  of  knowledge 
whether  of  good  or  evil ;  the  knowledge  cannot  defile,  nor  consequently 
the  books,  if  the  will  and  conscience  be  not  defiled.  For  books  are  as 
meats  and  viands  are;  some  of  good,  some  of  evil  substance;  and  yet 
God  in  that  unapocryphal  vision,  said  without  exception.  Rise,  Peter, 
kill  and  eat,  leaving  the  choice  to  each  man's  discretion.  Wholesome 
meats  to  a  vitiated  stomach  differ  little  or  nothing  from  unwholesome; 
and  best  books  to  a  naughty  mind  are  not  unappliable  to  occasions  of 
evil.  Bad  meats  will  scarce  breed  good  nourishment  in  the  healthiest 
concoction ;  but  herein  the  difference  is  of  bad  books,  that  they  to  a  dis- 
creet and  judicious  reader  serve  in  many  respects  to  discover,  to  confute, 
to  forewarn,  and  to  illustrate.  Whereof  what  better  witness  can  ye 
expect  I  should  produce,  than  one  of  your  own  now  sitting  in  ParHa- 
ment,  the  chief  of  learned  men  reputed  in  this  land,  Mr.  Selden;  whose 
volume  of  natural  and  national  laws  proves,  not  only  by  great  authorities 
brought  together,  but  by  exquisite  reasons  and  theorems  almost  mathe- 
matically demonstrative,  that  all  opinions,  yea  errors,  known,  read,  and 
collated,  are  of  main  service  and  assistance  toward  the  speedy  attainment 
of  what  is  truest.  I  conceive,  therefore,  that  when  God  did  enlarge  the 
universal  diet  of  man's  body,  saving  ever  the  rules  of  temperance.  He 
then  also,  as  before,  left  arbitrary  the  dieting  and  repasting  of  our  minds ; 
as  wherein  every  mature  man  might  have  to  exercise  his  own  leading 
capacity.  How  great  a  virtue  is  temperance,  how  much  of  moment 
through  the  whole  life  of  man!  Yet  God  commits  the  managing  so 
great  a  trust,  without  particular  law  or  prescription,  wholly  to  the  de- 
meanour of  every  grown  man.  And  therefore  when  He  Himself  tabled 
the  Jews  from  heaven,  that  omer,  which  was  every  man's  daily  portion 
of  manna,  is  computed  to  have  been  more  than  might  have  well  sufficed 
the  heartiest  feeder  thrice  as  many  meals.  For  those  actions  which 
enter  into  a  man,  rather  than  issue  out  of  him,  and  therefore  defile  not, 
God  uses  not  to  captivate  under  a  perpetual  childhood  of  prescription, 
but  trusts  him  with  the  gift  of  reason  to  be  his  own  chooser;  there  were 
but  little  work  left  for  preaching,  if  law  and  compulsion  should  grow  so 
fast  upon  those  things  which  heretofore  were  governed  only  by  exhorta- 
tion. Solomon  informs  us,  that  much  reading  is  a  weariness  to  the  flesh; 
but  neither  he  nor  other  inspired  author  tells  us  that  such,  or  such  read- 


MILTON'S  AREOPAGITICA  5 

ing  is  unlawful;  yet  certainly  had  God  thought  good  to  limit  us  herein, 
it  had  been  much  more  expedient  to  have  told  us  what  was  unlawful, 
than  what  was  wearisome.  ...  As  therefore  the  state  of  man  now  is; 
what  wisdom  can  there  be  to  choose,  what  continuance  to  forbear,  with- 
out the  knowledge  of  evil  ?  He  that  can  apprehend  and  consider  vice 
with  all  her  baits  and  seeming  pleasures,  and  yet  abstain,  and  yet  dis- 
tinguish, and  yet  prefer  that  which  is  truly  better,  he  is  the  true  way- 
faring Christian.  I  cannot  praise  a  fugitive  and  cloistered  virtue,  un- 
exercised and  unbreathed,  that  never  sallies  out  and  sees  her  adversary, 
but  slinks  out  of  the  race,  where  that  immortal  garland  is  to  be  run  for, 
not  without  dust  and  heat.  Assuredly  we  bring  not  innocence  into  the 
world,  we  bring  impurity  much  rather;  that  wliich  purifies  us  is  trial, 
and  trial  is  by  what  is  contrary.  That  virtue  therefore  which  is  but  a 
youngling  in  the  contemplation  of  evil,  and  knows  not  the  utmost  that 
vice  promises  to  her  followers,  and  rejects  it,  is  but  a  blank  virtue,  not 
a  pure;  her  whiteness  is  but  an  excremental  whiteness;  which  was  the 
reason  why  our  sage  and  serious  poet  Spenser,  whom  I  dare  be  known 
to  think  a  better  teacher  than  Scotus  or  Aquinas,  describing  true  tem- 
perance under  the  person  of  Guion,  brings  him  in  with  his  palmer 
through  the  cave  of  Mammon,  and  the  bower  of  earthly  bliss,  that  he 
might  see  and  know,  and  yet  abstain.  Since  therefore  the  knowledge 
and  survey  of  vice  is  in  this  world  so  necessary  to  the  constituting  of 
human  virtue,  and  the  scanning  of  error  to  the  confirmation  of  truth, 
how  can  we  more  safely,  and  with  less  danger  scout  into  the  regions  of 
sin  and  falsity  than  by  reading  all  manner  of  tractates  and  hearing  all 
manner  of  reason  ?  And  this  is  the  benefit  which  may  be  had  of  books 
promiscuously  read. 

But  of  the  harm  that  may  result  hence  three  kinds  are  usually  reck- 
oned. First,  is  feared  the  infection  that  may  spread;  but  then  all 
human  learning  and  controversy  in  religious  points  must  remove  out  of 
the  world,  yea  the  Bible  itself;  for  that  ofttimes  relates  blasphemy  not 
nicely,  it  describes  the  carnal  sense  of  wicked  men  not  unelegantly,  it 
brings  in  holiest  men  passionately  murmuring  against  Providence 
through  all  the  arguments  of  Epicurus;  in  other  great  disputes  it  an- 
swers dubiously  and  darkly  to  the  common  reader;  and  ask  a  Tal- 
mudist  what  ails  the  modesty  of  his  marginal  Keri,  that  Moses  and  all 
the  prophets  cannot  persuade  him  to  pronounce  the  textual  Chetiv.* 
For  these  causes  we  all  know  the  Bible  itself  put  by  the  Papist  into  the 

*  Marginal  Keri  .  .  .  textual  Chetiv.  Keri  meant  that  which  is  read;  Chetiv  that 
which  is  written.  Where  various  readings  occur,  the  readingto  be  avoided  was  written 
in  the  text,  and  the  true  reading,  or  keri,  in  the  margin.  The  corrections,  about  one 
thousand  in  number,  have  been  ascribed  to  Ezra.  Among  them  were  corrections,  which 
Milton  had  in  his  mind,  made  according  to  a  rule  of  the  Talmud,  "That  all  words  which 
in  the  Law  are  written  obscenely,  must  be  changed  to  more  civil  words."  For  which  in 
another  place  Milton  calls  the  scholiasts,  "  Fools  who  would  teach  men  to  read  more  de- 
cently than  God  thought  good  to  write." 


6  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

first  rank  of  prohibited  books.  The  ancientest  fathers  must  be  next 
removed,  as  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  that  Eusebian  book  of  Evan- 
gelic preparation,  transmitting  our  ears  through  a  hoard  of  heathenish 
obscenities  to  receive  the  Gospel.  Who  finds  not  that  Irenseus,  Epipha- 
inus,  Jerome,  and  others  discover  more  heresies  than  they  well  confute, 
and  that  oft  for  heresy  which  is  the  truer  opinion  ?  Nor  boots  it  to  say 
for  these,  and  all  the  heathen  writers  of  greatest  infection,  if  it  must  be 
thought  so,  with  whom  is  bound  up  the  hfe  of  human  learning,  that  they 
writ  in  an  unknown  tongue,  so  long  as  we  are  sure  those  languages  are 
known  as  well  to  the  worst  of  men,  who  are  both  most  able,  and  most 
dihgent  to  instil  the  poison  they  suck,  first  into  the  courts  of  princes, 
acquainting  them  with  the  choicest  delights,  and  criticisms  of  sin.  As 
perhaps  did  that  Petronius  whom  Nero  called  his  Arbiter,  the  master  of 
his  revels ;  and  the  notorious  ribald  of  Arezzo,  dreaded  and  yet  dear  to 
the  Itahan  courtiers.  I  name  not  him  for  posterity's  sake,  whom  Henry 
VIII.  named  in  merriment  his  Vicar  of  hell.  By  which  compendious 
way  all  the  contagion  that  foreign  books  can  infuse,  will  find  a  passage 
to  the  people  far  easier  and  shorter  than  an  Indian  voyage,  though  it 
could  be  sailed  either  by  the  north  of  Catai  eastward,  or  of  Canada 
westward,  while  our  Spanish  licensing  gags  the  English  press  never  so 
severely.  .  .  .  Seeing,  therefore,  that  those  books,  and  those  in  great 
abundance  which  are  likeliest  to  taint  both  life  and  doctrine,  cannot  be 
suppressed  without  the  fall  of  learning,  and  of  all  ability  in  disputation, 
and  that  these  books  of  either  sort  are  most  and  soonest  catching  to  the 
learned,  from  whom  to  the  common  people  whatever  is  heretical  or  dis- 
solute may  quickly  be  conveyed,  and  that  e\al  manners  are  as  perfectly 
learnt  without  books  a  thousand  other  ways  which  cannot  be  stopped, 
and  evil  doctrine  not  with  books  can  propagate,  except  a  teacher  guide, 
which  he  might  also  do  without  writing,  and  so  beyond  prohibiting,  I 
am  not  unable  to  unfold,  how  this  cautelous  enterprise  of  licensing  can 
be  exempted  from  the  number  of  vain  and  impossible  attempts.  And 
he  who  were  pleasantly  disposed,  could  not  well  avoid  to  liken  it  to  the 
exploit  of  that  gallant  man  who  thought  to  pound  up  the  crows  by  shut- 
ting his  park  gate.  Besides  another  inconvenience,  if  learned  men  be 
the  first  receivers  out  of  books  and  dispreaders  both  of  vice  and  error, 
how  shall  the  licensers  themselves  be  confided  in,  unless  we  can  confer 
upon  them,  or  they  assume  to  themselves  above  all  others  in  the  land, 
the  grace  of  infallibility  and  uncorruptedness  ?  And  again  if  it  be  true, 
that  a  wise  man,  like  a  good  refiner,  can  gather  gold  out  of  the  drossiest 
volume,  and  that  a  fool  will  be  a  fool  with  the  best  book,  yea  or  mthout 
book;  there  is  no  reason  that  we  should  deprive  a  wise  man  of  any  ad- 
vantage to  his  wisdom,  while  we  seek  to  restrain  from  a  fool,  that  which 
being  restrained  will  be  no  hindrance  to  his  folly.  For  if  there  should 
be  so  much  exactness  always  used  to  keep  that  from  him  which  is  unfit 


MILTON'S  AREOPAGITICA  7 

for  his  reading,  we  should  in  the  judgment  of  Aristotle  not  only,  but  of 
Solomon  and  of  our  Saviour,  not  vouchsafe  him  good  precepts,  and  by 
consequence  not  willingly  admit  him  to  good  books;  as  being  certain 
that  a  wise  man  will  make  better  use  of  an  idle  pamphlet,  than  a  fool 
will  do  of  sacred  Scripture. 

'T  is  next  alleged  we  must  not  expose  ourselves  to  temptations  without 
necessity,  and  next  to  that,  not  employ  our  time  in  vain  things.  To 
both  these  objections  one  answer  will  serve,  out  of  the  grounds  already 
laid,  that  to  all  men  such  books  are  not  temptations,  nor  vanities,  but 
useful  drugs  and  materials  wherewith  to  temper  and  compose  effective 
and  strong  medicines,  which  man's  life  cannot  want.  The  rest,  as  chil- 
dren and  childish  men,  who  have  not  the  art  to  qualify  and  prepare 
these  working  minerals,  well  may  be  exhorted  to  forbear,  but  hindered 
forcibly  they  cannot  be  by  all  the  hcensing  that  Sainted  Inquisition 
could  ever  yet  contrive.  .  .  .  See  the  ingenuity  of  Truth,  who,  when 
she  gets  a  free  and  wilhng  hand,  opens  herself  faster  than  the  pace  of 
method  and  discourse  can  overtake  her.  .  .  .  Plato,  a  man  of  high  au- 
thority, indeed,  but  least  of  all  for  his  commonwealth,  in  the  book  of  his 
laws,  which  no  city  ever  yet  received,  fed  his  fancy  by  making  many 
edicts  to  his  airy  burgomasters,  which  they  who  otherwise  admire  him, 
wish  had  been  rather  buried  and  excused  in  the  genial  cups  of  an  Aca- 
demic night  sitting.  By  which  laws  he  seems  to  tolerate  no  kind  of 
learning,  but  by  unalterable  decree,  consisting  most  of  practical  tradi- 
tions, to  the  attainment  whereof  a  library  of  smaller  bulk  than  his  own 
dialogues  would  be  abundant.  And  there  also  enacts,  that  no  poet 
should  so  much  as  read  to  any  private  man  what  he  had  written,  until 
the  judges  and  law-keepei*s  had  seen  it,  and  allowed  it.  But  that  Plato 
meant  this  law  peculiarly  to  that  commonwealth  which  he  had  imagined, 
and  to  no  other,  is  evident.  Why  was  he  not  else  a  lawgiver  to  himself, 
but  a  transgressor,  and  to  be  expelled  by  his  own  magistrates ;  both  for 
the  wanton  epigrams  and  dialogues  which  he  made,  and  his  perpetual 
reading  of  Sophron,  Mimus,  and  Aristophanes,  books  of  grossest  in- 
famy, and  also  for  commending  the  latter  of  them,  though  he  were  the 
maUcious  Ubeller  of  his  chief  friends,  to  be  read  by  the  tyrant  Dionysius, 
who  had  little  need  of  such  trash  to  spend  his  time  on  ?  But  that  he 
knew  this  licensing  of  poems  had  reference  and  dependence  to  many 
other  provisos  there  set  down  in  his  fancied  republic,  which  in  this  world 
could  have  no  place;  and  so  neither  he  himself,  nor  any  magistrate,  or 
city  ever  imitated  that  course,  which  taken  apart  from  those  other  col- 
lateral injunctions  must  needs  be  vain  and  fruitless.  .  .  . 

If  we  think  to  regulate  printing,  thereby  to  rectify  manners,  we  must 
regulate  all  recreations  and  pastimes,  all  that  is  delightful  to  man.  No 
music  must  be  heard,  no  song  be  set  or  sung,  but  what  is  grave  and  Doric. 
There  must  be  licensing  dancers,  that  no  gesture,  motion,  or  deportment 


8  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

be  taught  our  youth  but  what  by  their  allowance  shall  be  thought  honest ; 
for  such  Plato  was  provided  of;  it  will  ask  more  than  the  work  of  twenty 
licensers  to  examine  all  the  lutes,  the  violins,  and  the  guitars  in  every 
house;  they  must  not  be  suflFered  to  prattle  as  they  do,  but  must  be  li- 
censed what  they  may  say.  And  who  shall  silence  all  the  airs  and  mad- 
rigals that  whisper  softness  in  chambers  ?  The  windows  also,  and  the 
balconies  must  be  thought  on,  there  are  shrewd  books,  with  dangerous 
frontispieces,  set  to  sale;  who  shall  prohibit  them,  shall  twenty  licensers  ? 
The  villages  also  must  have  their  visitors  to  inquire  what  lectures  the 
bagpipe  and  the  rebeck  reads  even  to  the  ballatry,  and  the  gamut  of 
every  municipal  fiddler,  for  these  are  the  countryman's  Arcadias,  and 
his  Monte  Mayors.  Next,  what  more  national  corruption,  for  which 
England  hears  ill  abroad,  than  household  gluttony — who  shall  be  the 
rectors  of  our  daily  rioting  ?  And  what  shall  be  done  to  inhibit  the  mul- 
titudes that  frequent  those  houses  where  drunkenness  is  sold  and  har- 
boured ?  Our  garments  also  should  be  referred  to  the  hcensing  of  some 
more  sober  workmasters  to  see  them  cut  into  a  less  wanton  garb.  Who 
shall  regulate  all  the  mixed  conversation  of  our  youth,  male  and  female 
together,  as  is  the  fashion  of  this  country,  who  shall  still  appoint  what 
shall  be  discoursed,  what  presumed,  and  no  further  ?  Lastly,  who  shall 
forbid  and  separate  all  idle  resort,  all  evil  company  ?  These  things  will 
be,  and  must  be ;  but  how  they  shall  be  least  hurtful,  how  least  enticing, 
herein  consists  the  grave  and  governing  wisdom  of  a  state.  To  sequester 
out  of  the  world  into  Atlantic  and  Utopian  polities,  which  never  can  be 
drawn  into  use,  will  not  mend  our  condition ;  but  to  ordain  wisely  as  in 
this  world  of  evil,  in  the  midst  whereof  God  hath  placed  us  unavoid- 
ably. .  .  .  Impunity  and  remissness,  for  certain,  are  the  bane  of  a 
commonwealth,  but  here  the  great  art  lies,  to  discern  in  what  the  law 
is  to  bid  restraint  and  punishment,  and  in  what  things  persuasion  only 
is  to  work.  If  every  action  which  is  good  or  evil  in  man  at  ripe  years, 
were  to  be  under  pittance,  and  prescription,  and  compulsion,  what 
were  virtue  but  a  name,  what  praise  could  be  then  due  to  well-doing, 
what  gramercy  to  be  sober,  just,  or  continent.^  Many  there  be  that 
complain  of  Divine  Providence  for  suffering  Adam  to  transgress:  foolish 
tongues!  when  God  gave  him  reason,  he  gave  him  freedom  to  choose, 
for  reason  is  but  choosing;  he  had  been  else  a  mere  artificial  Adam, 
such  an  Adam  as  he  is  in  the  motions.  We  ourselves  esteem  not  of  that 
obedience,  or  love,  or  gift,  which  is  of  force;  God  therefore  left  him  free, 
set  before  him  a  provoking  object,  ever  almost  in  his  eyes  herein  con- 
sisted his  merit,  herein  the  right  of  his  reward,  the  praise  of  his  absti- 
nence. Wherefore  did  he  create  passions  within  us,  pleasures  round 
about  us,  but  that  these  rightly  tempered  are  the  very  ingredients  of 
virtue  ?     They  are  not  skilful  considerers  of  human  things,  who  imagine 


MILTON'S  AREOPAGITICA  9 

to  remove  sin  by  removing  the  matter  of  sin;  for,  besides  that  it  is  a  huge 
heap  increasing  under  the  very-  act  of  diminishing,  though  some  part  of 
it  may  for  a  time  be  withdrawn  from  some  persons,  it  cannot  from  all, 
in  such  a  universal  thing  as  books  are;  and  when  this  is  done,  yet  the 
sin  remains  entire.  Though  ye  take  from  a  covetous  man  all  his  treas- 
ure, he  has  yet  one  jewel  left,  ye  cannot  bereave  him  of  his  covetousness. 
Banish  all  objects  of  lust,  shut  up  all  youth  into  the  severest  discipline 
that  can  be  exercised  in  any  hermitage,  ye  cannot  make  them  chaste, 
that  came  not  thither  so,  such  great  care  and  wisdom  is  required  to  the 
right  managing  of  this  point.  Suppose  we  could  expel  sin  by  this  means: 
look  how  much  we  thus  expel  of  sin,  so  much  we  expel  of  virtue;  for 
the  matter  of  them  both  is  the  same ;  remove  that,  and  ye  remove  them 
both  alike.  This  justifies  the  high  providence  of  God,  who,  though 
He  commands  us  temperance,  justice,  continence,  yet  pours  out  before 
us,  even  to  a  profuseness,  all  desirable  things,  and  gives  us  minds  that 
can  wander  beyond  all  Umit  and  satiety.  Why  should  we  then  aflFect 
a  rigour  contrary  to  the  manner  of  God  and  of  nature,  by  abridging  or 
scanting  those  means,  which  books  freely  permitted  are,  both  to  the  trial 
of  virtue,  and  the  exercise  of  truth  ?  It  would  be  better  done,  to  learn 
that  the  law  must  needs  be  frivolous,  which  goes  to  restrain  things,  un- 
certainly and  yet  equally  working  to  good,  and  to  evil.  And  were  I  the 
chooser,  a  dram  of  well  doing  should  be  preferred  before  many  times  as 
much  the  forcible  hindrance  of  evil  doing.  For  God  sure  esteems  the 
growth  and  completing  of  one  virtuous  person,  more  than  the  restraint 
of  ten  vicious.  And  albeit  whatever  thing  we  hear  or  see,  sitting,  walk- 
ing, travelling,  or  conversing,  may  be  fitly  called  our  book,  and  is  of  the 
same  effect  that  writings  are,  yet  grant  the  thing  to  be  prohibited  were 
only  books,  it  appears  that  this  order  hitherto  is  far  insufficient  to  the 
end  which  it  intends.  Do  we  not  see,  not  once  or  oftener,  but  weekly 
that  continued  court-libel  against  the  Parliament  and  City,  printed,  as 
the  wet  sheets  can  witness,  and  dispersed  among  us,  for  all  that  licensing 
can  do  ?  yet  this  is  the  prime  service  a  man  would  think,  wherein  this 
Order  should  give  proof  of  itself.  ...  If  the  amendment  of  manners 
be  aimed  at,  look  into  Italy  and  Spain,  whether  those  places  be  one 
scruple  the  better,  the  honester,  the  wiser,  the  chaster,  since  all  the  in- 
quisitional rigour  that  hath  been  executed  upon  books. 

Another  reason,  whereby  to  make  it  plain  that  this  Order  will  miss 
the  end  it  seeks,  consider  by  the  quality  which  ought  to  be  in  every 
licenser.  It  cannot  be  denied  but  that  he  who  is  made  judge  to  sit  upon 
the  birth,  or  death,  of  books,  whether  they  may  be  wafted  into  this  world, 
or  not ;  had  need  to  be  a  man  above  the  common  measure,  both  studious, 
learned,  and  judicious ;  there  may  be  else  no  mean  mistakes  in  the  cen- 
sure of  what  is  passable  or  not;  which  is  also  no  mean  injury.  If  he  be 
of  such  worth  as  behoves  him,  there  cannot  be  a  more  tedious  and  un- 


10  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

pleasing  joumey-work,  a  greater  loss  of  time  levied  upon  his  head,  than 
to  be  made  the  perpetual  reader  of  unchosen  books  and  pamphlets, 
ofttimes  huge  volumes.  .  .  .  Seeing  therefore  those  who  now  possess 
the  employment,  by  all  evident  signs  wish  themselves  well  rid  of  it,  and 
that  no  man  of  worth,  none  that  is  not  a  plain  unthrift  of  his  own  hours, 
is  ever  Ukely  to  succeed  them,  except  he  mean  to  put  himself  to  the  salary 
of  a  press  corrector,  we  may  easily  forsee  what  kind  of  licensers  we  are 
to  expect  hereafter;  either  ignorant,  imperious,  and  remiss,  or  basely 
pecuniary.  This  is  what  I  had  to  show,  wherein  this  Order  cannot 
conduce  to  that  end,  whereof  it  bears  the  intention.  ...  If  therefore 
ye  be  loth  to  dishearten  heartily  and  discontent,  not  the  mercenary  crew 
of  false  pretenders  to  learning,  but  the  free  and  ingenuous  sort  of  such 
as  evidently  were  born  to  study,  and  love  learning  for  itself,  not  for  lucre, 
or  any  other  end,  but  the  service  of  God  and  of  truth,  and  perhaps  that 
lasting  fame  and  perpetuity  of  praise  which  God  and  good  men  have 
consented  shall  be  the  reward  of  those  whose  published  labours  advance 
the  good  of  mankind,  then  know,  that  so  far  to  distrust  the  judgment 
and  the  honesty  of  one  who  hath  but  a  common  repute  in  learning,  and 
never  yet  offended,  as  not  to  count  him  fit  to  print  his  mind,  without  a 
tutor  and  examiner,  lest  he  should  drop  a  schism,  or  something  of  cor- 
ruption, is  the  greatest  displeasure  and  indignity  to  a  free  and  knowing 
spirit  that  can  be  put  upon  him.  What  advantage  is  it  to  be  a  man  over 
it  is  to  be  a  boy  at  school,  if  we  have  only  escaped  the  ferula  to  come 
under  the  fescue  of  an  Imprimatur  ?  if  serious  and  elaborate  writings, 
as  if  they  were  no  more  than  the  theme  of  a  grammar-lad  under  his 
pedagogue,  must  not  be  uttered  without  the  cursory  eyes  of  a  temporising 
and  extemporising  licenser  ?  He  who  is  not  trusted  with  his  own  actions, 
his  drift  not  being  known  to  be  evil,  and  standing  to  the  hazard  of  law 
and  penalty,  has  no  great  argument  to  think  himself  reputed  in  the  Com- 
monwealth wherein  he  was  born,  for  other  than  a  fool  or  a  foreigner. 
When  a  man  writes  to  the  world,  he  summons  up  all  his  reason  and  de- 
liberation to  assist  him;  he  searches,  meditates,  is  industrious,  and  likely 
consults  and  confers  with  his  judicious  friends;  after  which  done 
he  takes  himself  to  be  informed  in  what  he  writes,  as  well 
as  any  that  writ  before  him;  if  in  this,  the  most  consummate  act 
of  his  fidelity  and  ripeness,  no  years,  no  industry,  no  former  proof  of 
his  abilities,  can  bring  him  to  that  state  of  maturity,  as  not  to  be  still 
mistrusted  snd  suspected,  unless  he  carry  all  liis  considerate  diligence, 
all  his  midnight  watchings,  and  expense  of  Palladian  oil,  to  the  hasty 
view  of  an  unleisured  licenser,  perhaps  much  his  younger,  perhaps  far 
his  inferior  in  judgment,  perhaps  one  who  never  knew  the  labour  of 
book-writing,  and  if  he  be  not  repulsed,  or  slighted,  must  appear  in 
print  like  a  puny  with  his  guardian,  and  his  censor's  hand  on  the  back 
of  his  title  to  be  his  bail  and  surety  that  he  is  no  idiot,  or  seducer,  it  can- 


MILTON'S  AREOPAGITICA  11 

not  be  but  a  dishonour  and  derogation  to  the  author,  to  the  book,  to  the 
privilege  and  dignity  of  Learning.  .  .  .  And  how  can  a  man  teach  with 
authority,  which  is  the  hfe  of  teaching,  how  can  he  be  a  doctor  in  his 
book  as  he  ought  to  be,  or  else  had  better  be  silent,  whenas  all  he  teaches, 
all  he  delivers,  is  but  under  the  tuition,  under  the  correction  of  his  pa- 
triarchal licenser  to  blot  or  alter  what  precisely  accords  not  with  the 
hide-bound  humour  which  he  calls  his  judgment  ?  When  every  acute 
reader  upon  the  first  sight  of  a  pedantic  licence,  will  be  ready  with  these 
like  words  to  ding  the  book  a  quoit's  distance  from  him,  I  hate  a  pupil 
teacher,  I  endure  not  an  instructor  that  comes  to  me  under  the  wardship 
of  an  overseeing  fist.  I  know  nothing  of  the  licenser,  but  that  I  have 
his  own  hand  here  for  his  arrogance;  who  shall  warrant  me  his  judg- 
ment ?  The  State,  sir,  replies  the  stationer,  but  has  a  quick  return, 
The  State  shall  be  my  governors,  but  not  my  critics;  they  may  be  mis- 
taken in  the  choice  of  a  hcenser,  as  easily  as  this  licenser  may  be  mis- 
taken in  an  author;  this  is  some  common  stuff;  and  he  might  add  from 
Sir  Francis  Bacon,  That  such  authorized  books  are  but  the  language 
of  the  times.  For  though  a  licenser  should  happen  to  be  judicious 
more  than  ordinary,  which  will  be  a  great  jeopardy  of  the  next  succession, 
jet  his  very  office,  and  his  commission  enjoins  him  to  let  pass  nothing 
but  what  is  vulgarly  received  already.  Nay,  which  is  more  lamentable, 
if  the  work  of  any  deceased  author,  though  never  so  famous  in  his  life- 
time, and  even  to  this  day,  come  to  their  hands  for  licence  to  be  printed, 
or  reprinted,  if  there  be  found  in  his  book  one  sentence  of  a  venturous 
edge,  uttered  in  the  height  of  zeal  and  who  knows  whether  it  might  not 
be  the  dictate  of  a  divine  spirit,  yet  not  suiting  with  every  low  decrepit 
humour  of  their  own,  though  it  were  Knox  himself,  the  Reformer  of  a 
Kingdom,  that  spake  it,  they  will  not  pardon  him  their  dash :  the  sense 
of  that  great  man  shall  to  all  posterity  be  lost,  for  the  fearfulness,  or  the 
presumptuous  rashness  of  a  perfunctory  licenser.  And  to  what  an  au- 
thor this  violence  hath  been  lately  done,  and  in  what  book  of  greatest 
consequence  to  be  faithfully  published,  I  could  now  instance,  but  shall 
forbear  till  a  more  convenient  season.  Yet  if  these  things  be  not  re- 
sented seriously  and  timely  by  them  who  have  the  remedy  in  their  power, 
but  that  such  iron-moulds  as  these  shall  have  authority  to  gnaw  out  the 
choicest  periods  of  exquisitest  books,  and  to  commit  such  a  treacherous 
fraud  against  the  orphan  remainders  of  worthiest  men  after  death,  the 
more  sorrow  will  belong  to  that  hapless  race  of  men,  whose  misfortune 
it  is  to  have  understanding.  Henceforth  let  no  man  care  to  learn,  or 
care  to  be  more  than  worldly  wise ;  for  certainly  in  higher  matters  to  be 
ignorant  and  slothful,  to  be  a  common  steadfast  dunce,  will  be  the  only 
pleasant  life,  and  only  in  request. 

And  as  it  is  a  particular  disesteem  of  every  knowing  person  alive,  and 
most  injurious  to  the  written  labours  and  monuments  of  the  dead,  so  to 


12  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

me  it  seems  an  undervaluing  and  vilifying  of  the  whole  Nation.  I  can- 
not set  so  light  by  all  the  invention,  the  art,  the  wit,  the  grave  and  soUd 
judgment  which  is  in  England,  as  that  it  can  be  comprehended  in  any 
twenty  capacities  how  good  soever,  much  less  that  it  should  not  pass 
except  their  superintendence  be  over  it,  except  it  be  sifted  and  strained 
with  their  strainers,  that  it  should  be  uncurrent  without  their  manual 
stamp.  Truth  and  understanding  are  not  such  wares  as  to  be  mono- 
polised and  traded  in  by  tickets  and  statutes  and  standards.  We  must 
not  think  to  make  a  staple  commodity  of  all  the  knowledge  in  the  land, 
to  mark  and  hcense  it  Uke  our  broadcloth,  and  our  woolpacks.  What 
is  it  but  a  servitude  like  that  imposed  by  the  Philistines,  not  to  be  allowed 
the  sharpening  of  our  own  axes  and  coulters,  but  we  must  repair  from 
all  quarters  to  twenty  licensing  forges.  .  .  .  Nor  is  it  to  the  common 
people  less  than  a  reproach;  for  if  we  be  so  jealous  over  them,  as  that 
we  dare  not  trust  them  with  an  English  pamphlet,  what  do  we  but  cen- 
sure them  for  a  giddy,  vicious,  and  ungrounded  people;  in  such  a  sick 
and  weak  state  of  faith  and  discretion,  as  to  be  able  to  take  nothing  down 
but  through  the  pipe  of  a  licenser.  That  this  is  care  or  love  of  them, 
we  cannot  pretend,  whenas  in  those  popish  places  where  the  laity  are 
most  hated  and  despised  the  same  strictness  is  used  over  them.  Wisdom 
we  cannot  call  it,  because  it  stops  but  one  breach  of  licence;  nor  that 
neither,  whenas  those  corruptions  which  it  seeks  to  prevent,  break  in 
faster  at  other  doors  which  cannot  be  shut. 

And  in  conclusion  it  reflects  to  the  disrepute  of  our  Ministers  also,  of 
whose  labours  we  should  hope  better,  and  of  the  proficiency  which  their 
flock  reaps  by  them,  than  that  after  all  this  light  of  the  Gospel  which  is, 
and  is  to  be,  and  all  this  continual  preaching,  they  should  still  be  fre- 
quented with  such  an  unprincipled,  unedified,  and  laic  rabble,  as  that 
the  whiff  of  every  new  pamphlet  should  stagger  them  out  of  their  cate- 
chism, and  Christian  walking.  ...  I  could  recount  what  I  have  seen 
and  heard  in  other  countries,  where  this  kind  of  inquisition  tyrannises; 
when  I  have  sat  among  their  learned  men,  for  that  honour  I  had,  and 
been  counted  happy  to  be  bom  in  such  a  place  of  philosophic  freedom, 
as  they  supposed  England  was,  while  themselves  did  nothing  but  be- 
moan the  servile  condition  into  which  learning  amongst  them  was 
brought;  that  this  was  it  which  had  damped  the  glory  of  Italian  wits; 
that  nothing  had  been  there  written  now  these  many  years  but  flattery 
and  fustian.  There  it  was  that  I  found  and  visited  the  famous  Galileo 
grown  old,  a  prisoner  to  the  Inquisition,  for  thinking  in  astronomy  other- 
wise than  the  Franciscan  and  Dominican  licensers  thought.  And  though 
I  knew  that  England  then  was  groaning  loudest  under  the  prelatical 
yoke,  nevertheless  I  took  it  as  a  pledge  of  future  happiness,  that  other 
nations  were  so  persuaded  of  her  liberty.  ..."  The  punishing  of  wits 
enhances  their  authority,"  saith  the  Viscount  St.  Albans;  "  and  a  forbid- 


MILTON'S  AREOPAGITICA  13 

den  writing  is  thought  to  be  a  certain  spark  of  truth  that  flies  up  in  the 
faces  of  them  who  seek  to  tread  it  out."  This  Order  therefore  may  prove 
a  nursing  mother  to  sects,  but  I  shall  easily  show  how  it  will  be  a  step- 
darae  to  Truth;  and  first  by  disenabling  us  to  the  maintenance  of  what 
is  known  already. 

Well  knows  he  who  uses  to  consider,  that  our  faith  and  knowledge 
thrives  by  exercise,  as  well  as  our  limbs  and  complexion.  Truth  is  com- 
pared in  Scripture  to  a  streaming  fountain;  if  her  waters  flow  not  in  a 
perpetual  progression,  they  sicken  into  a  muddy  pool  of  conformity  and 
tradition.  A  man  may  be  a  heretic  in  the  truth ;  and  if  he  believe  things 
only  because  his  Pastor  says  so,  or  the  Assembly  so  determines,  without 
knowing  other  reason,  though  his  belief  be  true,  yet  the  very  truth  he 
holds,  becomes  his  heresy.  .  .  . 

Another  sort  there  be,  who  when  they  hear  that  all  things  shall  be 
ordered,  all  things  regulated  and  settled;  nothing  written  but  what 
passes  through  the  custom-house  of  certain  Publicans  that  have  the 
tonnaging  and  poundaging  of  all  free-spoken  truth,  will  straight  give 
themselves  up  into  your  hands,  malce  'em  and  cut  'em  out  what  reUgion 
[or  morality  reasoned  or  unreasoned]  ye  please;  there  be  deUghts,  there 
be  recreations  and  jolly  pastimes  that  will  fetch  the  day  about  from  sun 
to  sun,  and  rock  the  tedious  year  as  in  a  dehghtful  dream.  What  need 
they  torture  their  heads  with  that  which  others  have  taken  so  strictly, 
and  so  unalterably  into  their  own  purveying?  These  are  the  fruits 
which  a  dull  ease  and  cessation  of  our  knowledge  will  bring  forth  among 
the  people.  How  goodly,  and  how  to  be  wished  were  such  an  obedient 
unanimity  as  this,  what  a  fine  conformity  would  it  starch  us  all  into! 
Doubtless  a  staunch  and  solid  piece  of  framework,  as  any  January  could 
freeze  together.  .  .  . 

But  if  his,  [the  lazy  complacent  minister's]  rear  and  flanks  be  not  im- 
paled, if  his  back  door  be  not  secured  by  the  rigid  hcenser,  but  that  a 
bold  book  may  now  and  then  issue  forth,  and  give  the  assault  to  some 
of  his  old  collections  in  their  trenches,  it  will  concern  him  then  to  keep 
waking,  to  stand  in  watch,  to  set  good  guards  and  sentinels  about  his 
received  opinions,  to  walk  the  round  and  counter-round  with  his  fellow 
inspectors,  fearing  lest  any  of  his  flock  be  seduced,  who  also  then  would 
be  better  instructed,  better  exercised  and  disciplined.  And  God  send 
that  the  fear  of  this  diUgence,  which  must  then  be  used,  do  not  make  us 
affect  the  laziness  of  a  licensing  Church. 

For  if  we  be  sure  we  are  in  the  right,  and  do  not  hold  the  truth  guiltily, 
which  becomes  not,  if  we  ourselves  condemn  not  our  own  weak  and 
frivolous  teaching,  and  the  people  for  an  untaught  and  irreligious  gad- 
ding rout,  what  can  be  more  fair,  that  when  a  man  judicious,  learned, 
and  of  a  conscience,  for  aught  we  know,  as  good  as  theirs  that  taught  us 
what  we  know,  shall  not  privily  from  house  to  house,  which  is  more 


14  FREE' PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

dangerous,  but  openly  by  writing  publish  to  the  world  what  his  opinion 
is,  what  his  reasons,  and  wherefore  that  which  is  now  thought  cannot 
be  sound  ?  Christ  urged  it  as  wherewith  to  justify  himself,  that  he 
preached  in  pubUc;  yet  writing  is  more  public  than  preaching;  and 
more  easy  to  refutation,  if  need  be,  there  being  so  many  whose  business 
and  profession  merely  it  is,  to  be  the  champions  of  Truth ;  which  if  they 
neglect,  what  can  be  imputed  but  their  sloth,  or  unabiUty  ?  Thus  much 
we  are  hindered  and  disinured  by  this  course  of  licensing  toward  the 
true  knowledge  of  what  we  seem  to  know. 

There  is  yet  behind  of  what  I  purposed  to  lay  open,  the  incredible  loss 
and  detriment  that  this  plot  of  licensing  puts  us  to;  more  than  if  some 
enemy  at  sea  should  stop  up  all  our  havens,  and  ports,  and  creeks,  it 
hinders  and  retards  the  importation  of  our  richest  Merchandise,  Truth; 
nay,  it  was  first  established  and  put  in  practice  by  Antichristian  malice 
and  mystery  on  set  purpose  to  extinguish,  if  it  were  possible,  the  light  of 
Reformation,  and  to  settle  falsehood;  little  differing  from  that  policy 
wherewith  the  Turk  upholds  his  Alcoran,  by  the  prohibition  of  Printing. 
.  .  .  Suffer  not  these  licensing  prohibitions  to  stand  at  every  place  of 
opportunity  forbidding  and  disturbing  them  that  continue  seeking,  that 
continue  to  do  our  obsequies  to  the  torn  body  of  our  martyred  saint.  We 
boast  our  light;  but  if  we  look  not  wisely  on  the  Sun  itself,  it  smites  us 
into  darkness.  .  .  .  The  light  which  we  have  gained,  was  given  us,  not 
to  be  ever  staring  on,  but  by  it  to  discover  onward  things  more  remote 
from  our  knowledge.  .  .  .  There  be  who  perpetually  complain  of 
schisms  and  sects,  and  make  it  such  a  calamity  that  any  man  dissents 
from  their  maxims.  'T  is  their  own  pride  and  ignorance  which  causes  the 
disturbing,  who  neither  will  hear  with  meekness,  nor  can  convince,  yet 
all  must  be  suppressed  which  is  not  found  in  their  Syntagma.  They 
are  the  troublers,  they  are  the  dividers  of  unity,  who  neglect  and  permit 
not  others  to  unite  those  dissevered  pieces  which  are  yet  wanting  to  the 
body  of  Truth.  To  be  still  searching  what  we  know  not,  by  what  we 
know,  still  closing  up  truth  to  truth  as  we  find  it  (for  all  her  body  is 
homogeneal,  and  proportional),  this  is  the  golden  rule  in  theology  as  well 
as  in  arithmetic,  and  makes  up  the  best  harmony  in  a  Church;  not  the 
orced  and  outward  union  of  cold,  and  neutral,  and  inwardly  divided 
minds.  .  .  .  Where  there  is  much  desire  to  learn,  there  of  necessity 
will  be  much  arguing,  much  writing,  many  opinions;  for  opinion  in 
good  men  is  but  knowledge  in  the  making.  Under  these  fantastic  ter- 
rors of  sect  and  schism,  we  wrong  the  earnest  and  zealous  thirst  after 
knowledge  and  understanding  which  God  hath  stirred  up  in  this  city. 
What  some  lament  of,  we  rather  should  rejoice  at,  should  rather  praise 
this  pious  forwardness  among  men,  to  reassume  the  ill-reputed  care  of 
their  Religion  [and  the  morality  of  their  thinking]  into  their  own  hands 
again.     A  little  generous  prudence,  a  little  forbearance  of  one  another. 


MILTON'S  AREOPAGITICA  15 

and  some  grain  of  charity,  might  win  all  these  diligences  to  join,  and  unite 
in  one  general  and  brotherly  search  after  Truth,  could  we  but  forego 
this  prelatical  tradition  of  crowding  free  consciences  and  Christian 
liberties  into  canons  and  precepts  of  men.  I  doubt  not,  if  some  great 
and  worthy  stranger  should  come  among  us,  wise  to  discern  the  mould 
and  temper  of  a  people,  and  how  to  govern  it,  observing  the  high  hopes 
and  aims,  the  diligent  alacrity  of  our  extended  thoughts  and  reasonings 
in  the  pursuance  of  truth  and  freedom,  but  that  he  would  cry  out  as 
Pyrrhus  did,  admiring  the  Roman  docihty  and  courage.  If  such  were 
my  Epirots,  I  would  not  despair  the  greatest  design  that  could  be  at- 
tempted to  make  a  Church  or  Kingdom  happy.  Yet  these  are  the  men 
cried  out  against  for  schismatics,  and  the  perfection  [of  a  great  structure 
architecturally  or  sociologically]  consists  in  this,  that  out  of  many  mod- 
erate varieties  and  brotherly  dissimilitudes  that  are  not  vastly  dispro- 
portional,  arises  the  goodly  and  the  graceful  symmetry  that  commends 
the  whole  pile  and  structure.  Let  us  therefore  be  more  considerate 
builders,  more  wise  in  spiritual  [or  moral]  architecture,  when  great 
reformation  is  expected.  .  .  .  And  that  we  are  to  hope  better  of  all 
these  supposed  sects,  and  schisms,  and  that  we  shall  not  need  that  so- 
Ucitude,  honest  perhaps  though  over-timorous,  of  them  that  vex  in  this 
behalf,  but  shall  laugh  in  the  end,  at  those  malicious  applauders  of  our 
differences,  I  have  reasons  to  persuade  me.  .  .  Methinks  I  see  in  my 
mind  a  noble  and  puissant  nation  rousing  herself  like  a  strong  man 
after  sleep,  and  shaking  her  invincible  locks.  Methinks  I  see  her  as  an 
eagle  mewing  her  mighty  youth,  and  kindling  her  undazzled  eyes  at  the 
full  midday  beam ;  purging  and  unsealing  her  long-abused  sight  at  the 
fountain  itself  of  heavenly  radiance;  while  the  whole  noise  of  timorous 
and  flocking  birds,  with  those  also  that  love  the  twilight,  flutter  about, 
amazed  at  what  she  means,  and  in  their  envious  gabble  would  prognos- 
ticate a  year  of  sects  and  schisms. 

What  should  ye  do  then,  should  ye  suppress  all  this  flowery  crop  of 
knowledge  and  new  light  sprung  up  and  yet  springing  daily  in  this  city, 
should  ye  set  an  oligarchy  of  twenty  engrossers  over  it,  to  bring  a  famine 
upon  our  minds  again,  when  we  shall  know  nothing  but  what  is  meas- 
ured to  us  by  their  bushel  ?  Believe  it.  Lords  and  Commons,  they  who 
counsel  ye  to  such  a  suppressing,  do  as  good  as  bid  ye  suppress  yourselves ; 
and  I  will  soon  show  how.  ...  It  is  the  liberty.  Lords  and  Commons, 
which  your  own  valorous  and  happy  counsels  have  purchased  us,  liberty 
which  is  the  nurse  of  all  great  wits ;  this  is  that  which  hath  rarefied  and 
enlightened  our  spirits  like  the  influence  of  heaven;  this  is  that  which 
hath  enfranchised,  enlarged,  and  lifted  up  our  apprehensions  degrees 
above  themselves.  Ye  cannot  make  us  now  less  capable,  less  knowing, 
less  eagerly  pursuing  of  the  truth,  unless  ye  first  make  yourselves,  that 
made  us  so,  less  the  lovers,  less  the  founders  of  our  true  liberty.     We 


16  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

can  grow  ignorant  again,  brutish,  formal,  and  slavish,  as  ye  found  us; 
but  you  then  must  first  become  that  which  ye  cannot  be,  oppressive, 
arbitrary,  and  tyrannous,  as  they  were  from  whom  ye  have  freed  us.  .  .  . 
Give  me  the  Hberty  to  know,  to  utter,  and  to  argue  freely  according  to 
conscience,  above  all  [other]  liberties.  What  would  be  best  advised,  then,  if 
it  be  found  so  hurtful  and  so  unequal  to  suppress  opinions  for  the  new- 
ness, or  the  unsuitableness  to  a  customary  acceptance,  will  not  be  my 
task  to  say;  I  only  shall  repeat  what  I  have  learned  from  one  of  your 
own  honourable  number,  a  right  noble  and  pious  lord,  who,  had  he  not 
sacrificed  his  hfe  and  fortunes  to  the  Church  and  Commonwealth,  we 
had  not  now  missed  and  bewailed  a  worthy  and  undoubted  patron  of 
this  argument.  Ye  know  him  I  am  sure;  yet  I  for  honour's  sake,  and 
may  it  be  eternal  to  him,  shall  name  him  the  Lord  Brook.  .  .  .  He 
exhorts  us  to  hear  with  patience  and  humility  those,  however  they  be 
miscalled,  that  desire  to  live  purely,  in  such  a  use  of  God's  ordinances, 
as  the  best  guidance  of  their  conscience  gives  them,  and  to  tolerate  them, 
though  in  some  disconformity  to  ourselves.  The  book  itself  will  tell 
us  more  at  large.  .  .  .  And  though  all  the  winds  of  doctrine  were  let 
loose  to  play  upon  the  earth,  so  Truth  be  in  the  field,  we  do  injuriously 
by  licensing  and  prohibiting  to  misdoubt  her  strength.  Let  her  and 
Falsehood  grapple;  who  ever  knew  Truth  put  to  the  worse,  in  a  free 
and  open  encounter.  Her  confuting  is  the  best  and  surest  suppressing. 
He  who  hears  what  praying  there  is  for  light  and  clearer  knowledge  to 
be  sent  down  among  us,  would  think  of  other  matters  to  be  constituted 
beyond  the  discipline  of  Geneva,  framed  and  fabricked  already  to  our 
hands.  Yet  when  the  new  hght  which  we  beg  for  shines  in  upon  us, 
there  be  who  envy,  and  oppose,  if  it  come  not  first  in  at  their  casements. 
What  a  collusion  is  this,  whenas  we  are  exhorted  by  the  wise  man  to 
use  diligence,  to  seek  for  wisdom  as  for  hidden  treasures  early  and  late, 
that  another  order  shall  enjoin  us  to  know  nothing  but  by  statute? 
When  a  man  hath  been  labouring  the  hardest  labour  in  the  deep  mines 
of  knowledge,  hath  furnished  out  his  findings  in  all  their  equipage, 
drawn  forth  his  reasons  as  it  were  a  battle  ranged,  scattered  and  defeated 
all  objections  in  his  way,  calls  out  his  adversary  into  the  plain,  ofiPers 
him  the  advantage  of  wind  and  sun,  if  he  please;  only  that  he  may  try 
the  matter  by  dint  of  argument,  for  his  opponents  then  to  skulk,  to  lay 
ambushments,  to  keep  a  narrow  bridge  of  licensing  where  the  challenger 
should  pass,  though  it  be  valour  enough  in  soldiership,  is  but  weakness 
and  cowardice  in  the  wars  of  Truth.  For  who  knows  not  that  Truth 
is  strong,  next  to  the  Almighty;  she  needs  no  policies,  nor  stratasjems, 
nor  licensings  to  make  her  victorious;  those  are  the  shifts  and  the  de- 
fences that  error  uses  against  her  power:  give  her  but  room,  and  do  not 
bind  her  when  she  sleeps,  for  then  she  speaks  not  true,  as  the  old  Pro- 
teus did,  who  spake  oracles  only  when  he  was  caught  and  bound,  but 


MILTON'S  AREOPAGITICA  17 

then  rather  she  turns  herself  into  all  shapes,  except  her  own,  and  perhaps 
tunes  her  voice  according  to  the  time,  as  Micaiah  did  before  Ahab,  until 
she  be  adjured  into  her  own  Ukeness.  Yet  is  it  not  impossible  that  she 
may  have  more  shapes  than  one.  What  else  is  all  that  rank  of  things 
indifferent,  wherein  Truth  may  be  on  this  side,  or  on  the  other,  without 
being  unUke  herself?  What  but  a  vain  shadow  else  is  the  abohtion  of 
those  ordinances,  that  hand-writing  nailed  to  the  cross ;  what  great  pur- 
chase is  this  Christian  Uberty  which  Paul  so  often  boasts  of  ?  His  doc- 
trine is,  that  he  who  eats  or  eats  not,  regards  a  day,  or  regards  it  not, 
may  do  either  to  the  Lord.  How  many  other  things  might  be  tolerated 
in  peace,  and  left  to  conscience,  had  we  but  charity,  and  were  it  not  the 
chief  stronghold  of  our  hypocrisy  to  be  ever  judging  one  another.  I 
fear  yet  this  iron  yoke  of  outward  conformity  hath  left  a  slavish  print 
upon  our  necks ;  the  ghost  of  a  Unen  decency  yet  haunts  us.  We  stum- 
ble and  are  impatient  at  the  least  dividing  of  one  visible  congregation 
from  another  though  it  be  not  in  fundamentals;  and  through  our  for- 
wardness to  suppress,  and  our  backwardness  to  recover  any  enthralled 
piece  of  truth  out  of  the  gripe  of  custom,  we  care  not  to  keep  truth  sepa- 
rated from  truth,  which  is  the  fiercest  rent  and  disunion  of  all.  We  do 
not  see  that  while  we  still  affect  by  all  means  a  rigid  external  formaUty, 
we  may  as  soon  fall  again  into  a  gross  conforming  stupidity,  a  stark  and 
dead  congealment  of  wood,  and  hay,  and  stubble  forced  and  frozen 
together,  which  is  more  to  the  sudden  degenerating  of  a  Church  than 
many  subdichotomies  of  petty  schisms.  Not  that  I  can  think  well  of 
every  Ught  separation,  or  that  all  in  a  Church  is  to  be  expected  gold  and 
silver  and  precious  stones :  it  is  not  possible  for  man  to  sever  the  wheat 
from  the  tares,  the  good  fish  from  the  other  fry;  that  must  be  the  Angels' 
Ministry  at  the  end  of  mortal  things.  Yet  if  all  cannot  be  of  one  mind, 
as  who  looks  they  should  be  ?  this  doubtless  is  more  wholesome,  more 
prudent,  and  more  Christian  that  many  be  tolerated,  rather  than  all 
compelled.  ...  In  the  meanwhile,  if  any  one  would  write,  and  bring 
his  helpful  hand  to  the  slow-moving  Reformation  which  we  labour  under, 
[though  it  pertain  to  sexual  moraUty]  if  Truth  have  spoken  to  him  before 
others,  or  but  seemed  at  least  to  speak,  who  hath  so  bejesuited  us  that 
we  should  trouble  that  man  with  asking  license  to  do  so  worthy  a  deed  ? 
and  not  consider  this,  that  if  it  come  to  prohibiting,  there  is  not  aught 
more  likely  to  be  prohibited  than  truth  itself;  whose  first  appearance 
to  our  eyes  bleared  and  dimmed  with  prejudice  and  custom,  is  more 
unsightly  and  unplausible  than  many  errors,  even  as  the  person  is  of 
many  a  great  man  slight  and  contemptible  to  see  to.  And  what  do  they 
tell  us  vainly  of  new  opinions,  when  this  very  opinion  of  theirs,  that 
none  must  be  heard,  but  whom  they  like,  is  the  worst  and  newest  opinion 
of  all  others;  and  is  the  chief  cause  why  sects  and  schisms  do  so  much 
abound,  and  true  knowledge  is  kept  at  distance  from  us.  .  .  .  And  if 


18  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

the  men  be  erroneous  who  appear  to  be  the  leading  schismatics,  what 
withholds  us  but  our  sloth,  our  self-will,  and  distrust  in  the  right  cause, 
that  we  do  not  give  them  gentle  meetings  and  gentle  dismissions,  that 
we  debate  not  and  examine  the  matter  thoroughly  with  liberal  and  fre- 
quent audience;  if  not  for  their  sakes,  yet  for  our  own  ?  seeing  no  man 
who  hath  tasted  learning,  but  will  confess  the  many  ways  of  profiting 
by  those  who  not  contented  with  stale  receipts  are  able  to  manage, 
and  set  forth  new  positions  to  the  world.  .  .  .  But  if  we  in  the  haste  of 
a  precipitant  zeal  shall  make  no  distinction,  but  resolve  to  stop  their 
mouths,  because  we  fear  they  come  with  new  and  dangerous  opinions, 
as  we  commonly  forejudge  them  ere  we  understand  them,  no  less  than 
woe  to  us,  while  thinking  thus  to  defend  the  Gospel  [and  sexual  morality], 
we  are  found  the  persecutors. 

This  I  know,  that  errors  in  a  good  government  and  in  a  bad  are  equally 
almost  incident;  for  what  Magistrate  may  not  be  misinformed,  and 
much  the  sooner,  if  liberty  of  Printing  be  reduced  into  the  power  of  a 
few ;  but  to  redress  willingly  and  speedily  what  hath  been  erred,  and  in 
highest  authority  to  esteem  a  plain  advertisement  more  than  others  have 
done  a  sumptuous  bribe,  is  a  virtue  (honoured  Lords  and  Commons) 
answerable  to  your  highest  actions,  and  whereof  none  can  participate 
but  the  greatest  and  wisest  men. 


THOMSON:  From  Preface  to  a  Speech  of  JOHN  MILTON,  "For  the  Liberty  of 
Unlicenced  Printing" 

A  free  Protestant  country,  without  the  Liberty  of  the  Press,  is  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms;  it  is  free  slavery  or  inchained  liberty.  Light  and 
darkness  are  not  more  opposite  than  liberty  and  the  deprivation  of  the 
means  of  being  rational. 

Who  that  loves  mankind,  is  not  sorry  that  anything  is  ever  published 
tending  to  confound  men's  understanding,  mislead  their  judgments,  or 
deprave  their  morals  ?  But  is  there  any  more  likely  method  for  sense  to 
prevail  against  absurdities,  than  leaving*  her  at  full  liberty  to  paint  them 
in  her  native  colors  ?  Can  truth  be  better  armed  against  error  than  with 
the  mighty  blade  of  uncontrolled  reason  ?  Or  virtue  more  surely  triumph 
over  immorality,  than  by  the  vigorous  execution  of  the  truly  wholesome 
laws  purposely  framed  for  her  support  ?  .  .  .  . 

I  know  it  is  objected  that  there  is  a  medium  between  an  absolute  liberty 
of  the  Press,  and  an  absolute  suppression  of  it;  which  I  admit;  but  yet 
aver  the  medium  (by  which  either  licensing,  or  nothing  at  all  is  meant) 
is  far  worse  on  all  accounts  than  either  extreme.  For  though  we  are  in- 
deed told  that  licensers  would  serve  us  with  wholesome  goods,  feed  us 
with  food  convenient  for  us,  and  prevent  only  the  distribution  of  poison, 
sure  such  cant  was  never  meant  to  impose  on  any,  but  those  who  are 


THOMSON'S  PREFACE   TO  MILTON  19 

asleep,  and  cannot  see  one  inch  before  them.  Let  no  true  Briton  there- 
fore be  deceived  by  such  fallacious  speeches,  but  consider  the  necessary 
consequences  which  must  follow,  and  he  will  soon  find  that  it  is  as  the 
flattering  language  of  the  strange  woman  (in  the  Book  of  Proverbs)  who 
with  her  fair  smooth  tongue  beguileth  the  simple,  and  leadeth  them  as  an 
oxe  to  the  slaughter.  That  plausible  and  deceitful  language  leadeth  into 
the  chambers  of  darkness  and  death. 


SECTION    II. 

FURTHER    IMPORTANT    DEFENSES   OF 
FREE    SPEECH. 


BENEDICT  SPINOZA:  From  His  Collected  Works,  1620-1677. 

We  have  shown  already  that  no  man's  mind  can  possibly  lie  wholly  at 
the  disposition  of  another,  for  no  one  can  willingly  transfer  his  natural 
right  of  free  reason  and  judgment,  or  be  compelled  to  do  so.  For  this 
reason  government  which  attempts  to  control  minds  is  accounted  tyranni- 
cal, and  it  is  considered  an  abuse  of  sovereignty  and  a  usurpation  of  the 
rights  of  subjects,  to  seek  to  prescribe  what  shall  be  accepted  as  true,  or 
rejected  as  false,  or  what  opinions  shall  actuate  men  in  their  worship  of 
God.  All  these  questions  fall  within  a  man's  natural  right,  which  he 
cannot  abdicate  even  with  his  own  consent. 

I  admit  that  the  judgment  can  be  biassed  in  many  ways,  and  to  an  al- 
most incredible  degree,  so  that  while  exempt  from  direct  external  control 
it  may  be  so  dependent  on  another  man's  words,  that  it  may  be  fitly  said 
to  be  ruled  by  him;  but  although  this  influence  is  carried  to  great  lengths, 
it  has  never  gone  so  far  as  to  invalidate  the  statement  that  every  man's 
understanding  is  his  own,  and  that  brains  are  as  diverse  as  palates.  .  .  . 

However  unlimited,  therefore,  the  power  of  a  sovereign  may  be,  how- 
ever implicitly  it  is  trusted  as  the  exponent  of  law  and  religion,  it  can 
never  prevent  men  from  forming  judgments  according  to  their  intellect, 
or  b  sing  influenced  by  any  given  emotion.  It  is  true  that  it  has  the  right 
to  treat  as  enemies  all  men  whose  opinions  do  not,  on  all  subjects,  coin- 
cide with  its  own ;  but  we  are  not  discussing  its  strict  rights,  but  its  proper 
course  of  action.  I  grant  that  it  has  the  right  to  rule  in  the  most  violent 
manner,  and  to  put  its  citizens  to  death  for  very  trivial  causes,  but  no  one 
supposes  it  can  do  this  with  the  approval  of  sound  judgment.  Nay,  in- 
asmuch as  such  things  cannot  be  done  without  extreme  peril  to  itself,  we 
may  even  deny  that  it  has  the  absolute  power  to  do  them,  or,  consequent- 
ly, the  absolute  right;  for  the  rights  of  the  sovereign  are  limited  by  his 
power. 

Since,  therefore,  no  one  can  abdicate  his  freedom  of  judgment  and  feel- 
ing; since  every  man  is  by  indefeasible  natural  right  the  master  of  his  own 
thoughts,  it  follows  that  men  thinking  in  diverse  and  contradictory  fash- 
ions cannot,  without  disastrous  results,  be  compelled  to  speak  only  ac- 
cording to  the  dictates  of  the  supreme  power.     Not  even  the  most  ex- 

20 


BENEDICT  SPINOZA  21 

perienced,  to  say  nothing  of  the  multitude,  know  how  to  keep  silence. 
Men's  common  failing  is  to  confide  their  plans  to  others,  though  there  be 
need  for  secrecy,  so  that  a  government  would  be  most  harsh  which  de- 
prived the  individual  of  his  freedom  of  saying  and  teaching  what  he 
thought;  and  would  be  moderate  if  such  freedom  would  be  granted. 
Still  we  cannot  deny  that  authority  may  be  as  much  injured  by  words  as 
by  actions ;  hence,  although  the  freedom  we  are  discussing  cannot  be  en- 
tirely denied  to  subjects,  its  unlimited  concession  would  be  most  baneful; 
we  must,  therefore,  now  inquire,  how  far  freedom  can  and  ought  to  be 
conceded  without  danger  to  the  peace  of  the  state,  or  the  power  of  the 
rulers;  and  this,  as  I  said  at  the  beginning  of  Chapter  XVI,  is  my  princi- 
pal object. 

It  follows,  plainly,  from  the  explanation  given  above,  of  the  founda- 
tions of  a  state,  that  the  ultimate  aim  of  government  is  not  to  rule,  or  re- 
strain, by  fear,  nor  to  exact  obedience,  but  contrariwise,  to  free  every  man 
from  fear,  that  he  may  live  in  all  possible  security;  in  other  words,  to 
strengthen  his  natural  right  to  exist  and  work  without  injury  to  himself 
and  others. 

No,  the  object  of  government  is  not  to  change  men  from  rational  beings 
into  beasts  or  puppets,  but  to  enable  them  to  develope  their  minds  and 
bodies  in  security,  and  to  employ  their  reason  unshackled,  neither  show- 
ing hatred,  anger,  or  deceit,  nor  watched  with  the  eyes  of  jealousy  and 
injustice.     In  fact,  the  true  aim  of  government  is  liberty. 

Now  we  have  seen  that  in  forming  a  state  the  power  of  making  laws 
must  either  be  vested  in  the  body  of  the  citizens,  or  in  a  portion  of  them, 
or  in  one  man.  For,  although  men's  free  judgments  are  very  diverse, 
each  one  thinking  that  he  alone  knows  everything,  and  although  com- 
plete unanimity  of  feeling  and  speech  is  out  of  the  question,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  preserve  peace,  unless  individuals  abdicate  their  right  of  acting 
entirely  on  their  own  judgment.  Therefore,  the  individual  justly  cedes 
the  right  of  free  action,  though  not  of  free  reason  and  judgment,  No  one 
can  act  against  the  authorities  without  danger  to  the  state,  though  his 
feelings  and  judgment  may  be  at  variance  therewith;  he  may  even  speak 
against  them,  provided  that  he  does  so  from  rational  conviction,  not  from 
fraud,  anger,  or  hatred,  and  provided  that  he  does  not  attempt  to  intro- 
duce any  change  on  his  private  authority. 

For  instance,  supposing  that  a  man  shows  that  a  law  is  repugnant  to 
sound  reason,  and  should  therefore  be  repealed ;  if  he  submits  his  opinion 
to  the  judgment  of  the  authorities  (who,  alone,  have  the  right  of  making 
and  repealing  laws),  and  meanwhile  acts  in  nowise  contrary  to  that  law, 
he  has  deserved  well  of  the  state,  and  has  behaved  as  a  good  citizen 
should ;  but  if  he  accuses  the  authorities  of  injustice,  and  stirs  up  the  peo- 
ple against  them,  or  if  he  seditiously  strives  to  abrogate  the  law  without 
their  consent,  he  is  a  mere  agitator  and  rebel. 


22  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Thus  we  see  how  an  individual  may  declare  and  teach  what  he  be- 
lieves, without  injury  to  the  authority  of  his  rulers,  or  to  the  public  peace; 
namely,  by  leaving  in  their  hands  the  entire  power  of  legislation  as  it 
ajjeds  action;  and  by  doing  nothing  against  their  laws  though  he  be 
compelled  often  to  act  in  contradiction  to  what  he  believes,  and  openly 
feels  to  be  best.  ... 

From  the  fundamental  notions  of  a  state,  we  have  discovered  how  a 
man  may  exercise  free  judgment  without  detriment  to  the  supreme 
power:  From  the  same  premises  we  can  no  less  easily  determine  what 
opinions  would  be  seditious.  Evidently  those  which  by  their  verj'  nature 
nullify  the  compact  by  which  the  right  of  free  action  was  ceded.  .  .  . 

However,  I  do  not  deny  that  there  are  some  doctrines  which,  while 
they  are  apparently  concerned  only  with  abstract  truths  and  falsehoods, 
are  yet  propounded  and  published  with  unworthy  motives.  This  quest- 
tion  we  have  discussed  in  Chapter  XV  and  shown  that  reason  should 
nevertheless  remain  unshackled.  If  we  hold  to  the  principle  that  a  man's 
loyalty  to  the  state  should  be  judged,  like  his  loyalty  to  God,  from  his 
actions  only — ^namely,  from  his  charity  towards  his  neighbors,  we  cannot 
doubt  that  the  best  government  will  allow  freedom  of  philosophical  specu- 
lation no  less  than  of  religious  belief.  I  confess  that  from  such  freedom 
inconveniences  may  sometimes  arise,  but  what  question  was  ever  settled 
so  wisdy  that  no  abuses  could  possibly  spring  therefrom  ?  He  who  seeks 
to  r^ulate  everything  by  law,  is  more  likely  to  arouse  vices  than  to  reform 
them.  It  is  best  to  grant  what  cannot  be  abolished,  even  though  it  be  in 
itself  harmful.  How  many  evils  spring  from  luxury,  envy,  avarice, 
drunkenness  and  the  like,  yet  these  are  tolerated — vices  as  they  are — be- 
cause they  cannot  be  prevented  by  legal  enactments.  How  much  more 
then  should  freethought  be  granted,  seeing  that  it  is  in  itself  a  virtue  and 
that  it  cannot  be  crushed.  Besides,  the  evil  results  can  easily  be  checked, 
as  I  will  show,  by  the  secular  authorities,  not  to  mention  that  such  free- 
dom is  absolutely  necessary  for  progress  in  science  and  the  liberal  arts; 
for  no  man  follows  such  pursuits  to  advantage  unless  his  judgment  be 
entirely  free  and  unhampered. 

But  let  it  be  granted  that  freedom  may  be  crushed,  and  men  may  be 
so  bound  down  that  they  do  not  dare  to  utter  a  whisper,  save  at  the  bid- 
ding of  their  rulers;  nevertheless  this  can  never  be  carried  to  the  pitch  of 
making  them  think  according  to  authority,  so  that  the  necessary  conse- 
quences would  be  that  men  would  daily  be  thinking  one  thing  and  saying 
another,  to  the  corruption  of  good  faith,  that  mainstay  of  government, 
and  to  the  fostering  of  hateful  flatter}-  and  perfidy  whence  springs  strata- 
gems, and  the  corruption  of  every  good  art. 

It  is  far  from  possible  to  impose  uniformity  of  speech,  for  the  more 
rulers  strive  to  curtail  freedom  of  speech,  the  more  obstinately  are  they 
resisted ;  not  indeed  bv  the  avaricious,  the  flatterers,  and  other  numskulls. 


JOHN  LOCKE  28 

who  think  supreme  salvation  consists  in  filling  their  stomachs  and  gloat- 
ing over  their  money  bags,  but  by  those  whom  good  education,  sound 
morality,  and  virtue  have  rendered  more  free.  Men,  as  generally  con- 
stituted, are  most  prone  to  resent  the  branding  as  criminal  of  opinions 
which  they  believe  to  be  true,  and  the  prescription  as  wicked  of  that 
which  inspires  them  with  their  piety  towards  God  and  man;  hence  they 
are  ready  to  forswear  the  laws  and  conspire  against  the  authorities, 
thinking  it  not  shameful  but  honorable  to  stir  up  seditions  and  perpet- 
uate any  sort  of  crime  with  this  end  in  view.  Such  being  the  constitution 
of  human  nature,  we  see  that  laws  directed  against  opinions  affect  the 
generous-minded  rather  than  the  wicked,  and  are  adapted  less  for  coerc- 
ing criminals  than  for  irritating  the  upright;  so  that  they  cannot  be  main- 
tained without  great  peril  to  the  state. 

Moreover,  such  laws  are  almost  always  useless,  for  those  who  hold 
that  the  opinions  proscribed  are  sound,  cannot  possibly  obey  the  law; 
whereas  those  who  already  reject  them  as  false,  accept  the  law  as  a  kind 
of  privilege,  and  make  such  boast  of  it,  that  authority  is  powerless  to  re- 
peal it,  even  if  such  a  course  be  subsequently  desired. 

To  these  considerations  may  be  added  what  we  said  in  Chapter  XVIII 
in  treating  of  the  historj-  of  the  Hebrews.  And,  lastly,  how  many  schisms 
have  arisen  in  the  Church  from  the  attempts  of  the  authorities  to  decide 
by  law  the  intricacies  of  theological  controversy. 


JOHN  LOCKE:  From  "Four  Letters  on  ToUratum  in  ReUgion,"  1689. 

No  man  complains  of  the  ill-management  of  his  neighbour's  affairs. 
No  man  is  angry  with  another  for  an  error  committed  in  sowing  his  land» 
or  in  marrying  his  daughter.  Nobody  corrects  a  spendthrift  for  con- 
suming his  substance  in  taverns.  Let  any  man  pull  down,  or  build,  or 
make  whatsoever  expenses  he  pleases,  nobody  murmurs,  nobody  con- 
trouls  him;  he  has  his  Uberty.  But  if  any  man  do  not  frequent  the 
church,  if  he  do  not  there  conform  his  behaviour  exactly  to  the  accus- 
tomed ceremonies,  or  if  he  brings  not  his  children  to  be  initiated  in  the 
sacred  mysteries  of  this  or  the  other  congregation;  this  immediately 
causes  an  uproar,  and  the  neighbourhood  is  filled  with  noise  and  clamour. 
Every  one  is  ready  to  be  the  avenger  of  so  great  a  crime.  And  the  zealots 
hardly  have  patience  to  refrain  from  violence  and  rapine,  so  long  till  the 
cause  be  heard,  and  the  poor  man  be,  according  to  form,  condemned  to 
the  loss  of  liberty,  goods,  or  life.  Oh  that  our  ecclesiastical  orators,  of 
every  sect,  would  apply  themselves,  with  all  the  strength  of  arguments 
that  they  are  able,  to  the  confounding  of  men's  errors !  But  let  them 
spare  their  persons.  Let  them  not  supply  their  want  of  reasons  with 
the  instruments  of  force,  which  belong  to  another  jurisdiction,  and  do  ill 


24  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

become  a  churchman's  hands.  Let  them  not  call  in  the  magistrate's 
authority  to  the  aid  of  their  eloquence,  or  learning;  lest  perhaps,  whilst 
they  pretend  only  love  for  the  truth,  this  their  intemperate  zeal,  breathing 
nothing  but  fire  and  sword,  betray  their  ambition,  and  shew  that  what 
they  desire  is  temporal  dominion.  For  it  will  be  very  difficult  to  per- 
suade men  of  sense,  that  he,  who  with  dry  eyes,  and  satisfaction  of  mind, 
can  deUver  his  brother  unto  the  executioner,  to  be  burnt  alive,  does  sin- 
cerely and  heartily  concern  himself  to  save  that  brother  from  the  flames 
of  hell  in  the  world  to  come. 

Laws  provide,  as  much  as  possible,  that  the  goods  and  health  of  sub- 
jects be  not  injured  by  the  fraud  or  violence  of  others ;  they  do  not  guard 
them  from  the  negligence  or  ill-husbandry  of  the  possessors  themselves. 
No  man  can  be  forced  to  be  rich  or  healthful,  whether  he  will  nor  no. 
Nay,  God  himself  will  not  save  men  against  their  wills.  I  may  grow 
rich  by  an  art  that  I  take  not  delight  in ;  I  may  be  cured  of  some  disease 
by  remedies  that  I  have  not  faith  in ;  but  I  cannot  be  saved  by  a  religion 
that  I  distrust,  and  by  a  worship  that  I  abhor. 

Covetousness,  uncharitableness,  idleness,  and  many  other  things  are 
sins,  by  the  consent  of  all  men,  which  yet  no  man  ever  said  were  to  be 
punished  by  the  magistrate.  The  reason  is  because  they  are  not  pre- 
judicial to  other  men's  rights,  nor  do  they  break  the  publick  peace  of 
societies.  Nay,  even  the  sins  of  lying  and  perjury  are  nowhere  punish- 
able by  laws;  unless  in  certain  cases,  in  which  the  real  turpitude  of  the 
thing,  and  the  offence  against  God,  are  not  considered,  but  only  the 
injury  done  unto  men's  neighbours,  and  to  the  commonwealth. 

For  if  men  enter  into  seditious  conspiracies,  it  is  not  religion  inspires 
them  to  it  in  their  meetings,  but  their  suflFerings  and  oppressions  that 
make  them  willing  to  ease  themselves.  Just  and  moderate  governments 
are  everywhere  quiet,  ever3rwhere  safe.  But  oppression  raises  ferments, 
and  makes  men  struggle  to  cast  off  an  uneasy  and  tyrannical  yoke.  I 
know  that  seditions  are  very  frequently  raised  upon  pretence  of  religion. 
But  it  is  as  true,  that,  for  religion,  subjects  are  frequently  ill  treated, 
and  Uve  miserably.  Believe  me,  the  stirs  that  are  made,  proceed  not 
from  any  peculiar  temper  of  this  or  that  church  or  religious  society;  but 
from  the  common  disposition  of  all  mankind,  who  when  they  groan 
under  an  heavy  burthen,  endeavor  naturally  to  shake  off  the  yoke  that 
galls  their  necks. 

Some  enter  into  company  for  trade  and  profit;  others,  for  want  of 
business,  have  their  clubs  for  claret.  Neighbourhood  joins  some,  and 
religion  others.  But  there  is  one  only  thing  which  gathers  people  into 
seditious  commotions,  and  that  is  oppression. 

I  will  suppose,  that  as  force  applied  your  way  is  apt  to  make  the  in- 
considerate consider,  so  force  applied  another  way  is  apt  to  make  the 
lascivious  chaste.     The  argument  then,  in  your  form,  will  stand  thus: 


JOHN  LOCKE  25 

"Who  can  deny  but  that  force,  indirectly,  and  at  a  distance  may,  by  cas- 
traction,  do  some  service  towards  bringing  men  to  embrace  that  chastity, 
which  otherwise  they  would  never  acquaint  themselves  with."  Thus, 
you  see,  "  castraction  may,  indirectly,  and  at  a  distance,  be  serviceable 
towards  the  salvation  of  mens  souls."  But  will  you  say,  from  such  a 
usefullness  as  this,  because  it  may  be  indirectly,  and  at  a  distance,  con- 
duce to  saving  of  any  of  his  subject's  souls,  that  therefore  the  magistrate 
has  a  right  to  do  it,  and  may  by  force  make  his  subjects  eunuchs  for  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven  ?  It  is  not  for  the  magistrate,  or  anybody  else, 
upon  an  imagination  of  its  usefullness,  to  make  use  of  any  other  means  for 
the  salvation  of  men's  souls  than  what  the  Author  and  Finisher  of  our 
faith  hath  directed.     You  may  be  mistaken  in  what  you  think  useful. 

A  pretty  remedy  and  manifestly  effectual  at  first  sight — that  because 
men  were  all  promiscuously  apt  to  be  misled  in  their  judgment,  or  choice 
of  their  religion,  by  passion,  lust,  and  other  men,  therefore  they  should 
chuse  some  amongst  themselves,  who  might,  they  and  their  successors, 
men  made  just  like  themselves,  punish  them  that  rejected  the  true  re- 
Ugion. 

But  when  one  man  shall  think  himself  a  competent  judge  that  the 
true  religion  is  proposed  with  evidence  sufficient  for  another;  and  thence 
shall  take  upon  him  to  punish  him  as  an  offender,  because  he  embraces 
not,  upon  evidence  that  he,  the  proposer,  judges  sufficient,  the  rehgion 
that  he  judges  true;  he  had  need  be  able  to  look  into  the  thoughts  of 
men,  and  know  their  several  abihties;  unless  he  will  make  his  own  un- 
derstanding and  faculties  to  be  the  measure  of  those  of  all  mankind, 
which  if  they  be  no  higher  elevated,  no  larger  in  their  comprehensions, 
no  more  discerning,  than  those  of  some  men,  he  will  not  only  be  unfit  to 
be  a  judge  in  that,  but  in  almost  any  case  whatsoever. 

But  seducers,  if  they  be  tolerated,  will  be  ready  at  hand,  and  diligent ; 
and  men  will  barken  to  them.  Seducers  surely  have  no  force  on  their 
side,  to  make  people  harken.  And  if  this  be  so,  there  is  a  remedy  at 
hand,  better  than  force,  if  you  and  your  friends  will  use  it,  which  cannot 
but  prevail;  and  that  is,  let  the  ministers  of  truth  be  as  diligent;  and 
they  bringing  truth  with  them,  truth  obvious  and  easy  to  understand, 
as  you  say  what  is  necessary  to  salvation  is,  cannot  but  prevail.  But 
seducers  are  barkened  to,  because  they  teach  opinions  favourable  to 
men's  lusts.  Let  the  magistrate,  as  is  his  duty,  hinder  the  practices 
which  their  lusts  would  carry  them  to,  and  the  advantage  will  still  be  on 
the  side  of  truth. 

After  all.  Sir,  if,  as  the  apostle  tells  the  Corinthians  (1  Cor.  XI.  19)» 
"There  must  also  be  heresies  among  you,  that  they  which  are  approved 
may  be  made  manifest " ;  which,  I  beseech  you,-  is  best  for  the  salvation 
of  men's  souls;  that  they  should  enquire,  hear,  examine,  consider,  and 
then  have  the  liberty  to  profess  what  they  are  persuaded  of;  or,  not  hav- 


26  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

ing  considered  they  should  be  forced  not  to  own  nor  follow  their  per- 
suasions; or  else,  that  being  of  the  national  religion,  they  should  go 
ignorantly  on  without  any  consideration  at  all  ?  In  one  case,  if  your 
penalties  prevail,  men  are  forced  to  act  contrary  to  their  consciences, 
which  is  not  the  way  to  salvation ;  and  if  the  penalties  prevail  not,  you 
have  the  same  fruits,  sects,  and  heresies,  as  under  toleration;  in  the 
other,  it  is  true,  those  ignorant,  loose,  unthinking  conformists,  do  not 
break  company  with  those  who  embrace  the  truth  that  will  save  them, 
but  I  fear  can  no  more  be  said  to  have  any  share  in  it  than  those  who 
openly  dissent  from  it.  For  it  is  not  being  in  the  company,  but  having 
on  the  wedding  garment,  that  keeps  men  from  being  bound  band  and 
foot,  and  cast  into  a  dreadful  and  external  prison. 

If  you  can  make  it  practicable  that  the  magistrate  should  punish  men 
for  rejecting  the  true  reUgion,  without  judging  which  is  the  true  religion 
or  if  the  true  religion  could  appear  in  person,  take  the  magistrate's  seat, 
and  there  judge  all  that  rejected  her;  something  might  be  done.  But 
the  mischief  of  it  is,  it  is  a  man  that  must  condemn,  men  must  punish, 
and  men  cannot  do  this  but  by  judging  who  is  guilty  of  the  crime  which 
they  punish.  Suppose  the  magistrate  be  commissioned  to  punish  those 
who  depart  from  right  reason,  the  magistrate  can  never  yet  punish  any 
one,  unless  he  be  judge  what  is  right  reason;  and  then  judging  that 
murder,  theft,  adultery,  narrow  cart-wheels,  or  want  of  bows  and  arrows 
in  a  man's  house,  are  against  right  reason,  he  may  make  laws  to  punish 
men  guilty  of  those,  as  rejecting  right  reason. 

I  having  said,  That  if  such  an  indirect  and  at  a  distance  usefulness 
were  sufficient  to  justify  the  use  of  force,  the  magistrate  might  make  his 
subjects  eunuchs  for  the  use  of  heaven;  you  reply  that  you  suppose  I 
will  not  say  "  castraction  is  necessary,  because  you  hope  I  acknowledge, 
that  marriage,  and  that  grace  which  God  denies  to  none  who  seriously 
ask  it,  are  sufficient  for  that  purpose."  And  I  hope  you  acknowledge 
that  preaching,  admonitions,  and  instructions,  and  that  grace  which 
God  denies  to  none  who  seriously  ask  it,  are  sufficient  for  salvation.  So 
that  by  this  answer  of  yours,  there  being  no  more  necessity  of  force  to 
make  men  of  the  true  religion,  than  there  is  of  castraction  to  make  men 
chaste,  it  will  still  remain  that  the  magistrate,  when  he  thinks  fit,  may 
upon  your  principles  as  well  castrate  men  to  make  them  chaste,  as  use 
force  to  make  them  embrace  the  truth  that  must  save  them. 

If  castraction  be  not  necessary,  "  because  marriage  and  the  grace  of 
God  is  sufficient,"  without  it ;  nor  will  force  be  necessary  because  preach- 
ing and  the  grace  of  God  is  sufficient  without  it;  and  this,  I  think,  by 
your  own  rule,  where  you  tell  us,  "  Where  there  are  many  useful  means, 
and  some  of  them,  are  sufficient  w'out  the  rest,  there  is  no  necessity  of 
using  them  all."  So  that  you  must  either  quit  your  necessity  of  force, 
or  take  in  castraction  too ;  which,  however  it  might  not  go  down  with  the 


JOHN  LOCKE  27 

untractable  and  desf>erately  perverse  and  obstinate  people  in  these 
Western  countries,  yet  is  a  doctrine  you  may  hope  may  meet  with  a 
l>etter  reception  in  the  Ottoman  empire,  and  recommend  you  to  some 
of  my  Mahometans. 

If  therefore  reUgion  of  dissenters  from  the  true  be  a  fault  to  be  pun- 
ished by  the  magistrate  who  is  to  judge  who  are  guilty  of  that  fault  ? 
Must  it  be  the  magistrate  everywhere,  or  the  magistrate  in  some  coun- 
tries, and  not  in  others,  or  the  magistrate  nowhere  ?  If  the  magistrate 
nowhere  is  to  be  judge  who  are  dissenters  from  the  true  religion,  he 
can  nowhere  punish  them.  If  he  be  to  be  everywhere  judge,  then  the 
king  of  France  or  the  Great  Turk  must  punish  those  whom  they  judge 
dissenters  from  the  true  reUgion,  as  well  as  other  potentates.  If  some 
magistrates  have  a  right  to  judge,  and  others  not;  that  yet  I  fear,  how 
absurd  soever  it  be,  should  I  grant  it,  will  not  do  your  business.  For 
besides  that,  they  will  hardly  agree  to  make  you  their  infallible  umpire 
in  the  case,  to  determine  who  of  them  have,  and  who  have  not,  this  right 
to  judge  which  is  the  true  reUgion;  or  if  they  should,  and  you  should 
declare  the  king  of  England  had  that  right,  \iz.,  whilst  he  complied  to 
support  the  orthodoxy,  ecclesiastical  polity,  and  those  ceremonies  which 
you  approve  of;  but  that  the  king  of  France,  and  the  great  Turk,  had  it 
not,  and  so  could  have  no  right  to  use  force  on  those  they  judged  dissen- 
ters from  the  true  rehgion ;  you  ought  to  bethink  yourself  what  you  will 
reply  to  one  that  should  use  your  own  words:  **  If  such  a  degree  of  out- 
ward force,  as  has  been  mentioned,  be  really  of  great  and  even  necessary 
use,  for  the  advancing  of  the  true  religion,  and  salvation  of  souls."  thep 
it  must  be  acknowledged,  that  in  France  and  Turkey,  etc.,  there  is  right 
somewhere  to  use  it,  for  the  advancing  those  ends;  unless  we  will  say 
(what  without  impiety  cannot  be  said)  that  the  wise  and  benign  Dis- 
poser and  Governor  of  all  soever,  would  have  denied  you  that  hberty; 
and  if  I  mistake  not  the  party  you  say  you  write  for,  demands  it  of  you. 

If  you  find  upon  a  review  of  the  whole,  that  you  have  managed  your 
cause  for  God  and  the  souls  of  men  with  that  sincerity  and  clearness 
that  satisfies  your  own  reason,  and  you  think  may  satisfy  that  of  other 
men,  I  shall  congratulate  to  you  so  happy  a  constitution.  But  if  all 
your  magnified  and  necessarj'^  means  of  force,  in  the  way  you  contend 
for,  reaches  no  further  than  to  bring  men  to  a  bare  outward  conformity 
to  the  Church  of  England,  wherein  you  can  sedately  affirm  that  it  is 
presumable  that  all  that  are  of  it  are  so  upon  reason  and  conviction ;  I 
suppose  there  needs  no  more  to  be  said  to  convince  the  world  what  party 
you  write  for. 

You  were  more  than  ordinary  reserved  and  gracious,  when  you  tell 
me,  that  "  What  party  you  write  for,  you  will  not  undertake  to  say." 
But  having  told  me  that  my  Letter  tends  to  the  promoting  of  scepticism 
in  religion,  you  thought,  it  is  like,  that  was  sufficient  to  shew  the  party 


28  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

I  write  for;  and  so  you  might  safely  end  your  Letter  with  words  that 
looked  like  civil.  But  that  you  may  another  time  be  a  little  better  in- 
formed what  party  I  write  for,  I  will  tell  you.  They  are  those  who  in 
every  nation  fear  God,  work  righteousness,  and  are  accepted  with  him; 
and  not  those  who  in  every  nation  are  zealous  for  human  constitutions, 
cry  up  nothing  so  much  as  outward  conformity  to  the  national  reUgion, 
and  are  accepted  by  those  who  are  the  promoters  of  it.  Those  that  I 
write  for  are  those,  who,  according  to  the  hght  of  their  own  consciences, 
are  everywhere  in  earnest  in  matters  of  their  own  salvation,  without  any 
desire  to  impose  on  others;  a  party  so  seldom  favoured  by  any  of  the 
powers  or  sects  of  the  world;  a  party  that  has  so  few  preferments  to 
bestow;  so  few  benefices  to  reward  the  endeavour  of  any  one  who  ap- 
pears for  it,  that  I  conclude  I  shall  easily  be  believed  when  I  say,  that 
neither  hopes  of  preferment,  nor  a  design  to  recommend  myself  to  those 
I  live  amongst,  has  biassed  my  understanding,  or  misled  me  in  my 
undertaking.  So  much  truth  as  serves  the  turn  of  any  particular  church, 
and  can  be  accommodated  to  the  narrow  interest  of  some  human  con- 
stitution, is  indeed  often  received  with  applause,  and  the  pubUsher  finds 
his  account  in  it.  But  I  think  I  may  say,  truth,  in  its  full  latitude  of 
those  generous  principles  of  the  Gospel,  which  so  much  recommend 
and  inculcate  universal  charity,  and  a  freedom  from  the  inventions  and 
impositions  of  men  in  the  things  of  God,  has  so  seldom  had  a  fair  and 
favourable  hearing  anywhere,  that  he  must  be  very  ignorant  of  the  his- 
tory and  nature  of  man,  however  dignified  and  distinguished,  who  pro 
poses  to  himself  any  secular  advantage  by  writing  for  her  at  that  rate; 


M.  DE  VOLTAIRE:  From  "A  Treatise  <m  Religimis  Toleration"  about  1750. 

In  a  word,  toleration  hath  never  been  the  cause  of  a  civil  war;  while, 
on  the  contrary,  persecution  hath  covered  the  earth  with  blood  and  car- 
nage. Let  any  one  judge  then  of  these  two  rivals;  between  the  mother 
who  is  ready  to  destroy  her  child,  and  her  who  is  willing  to  part  with  it, 
in  order  to  save  its  life.  .  .  . 

The  greater  variety  of  sectaries  there  are,  the  less  each  becomes  danger- 
ous: their  multiplicity  diminishes  their  power,  while  all  are  confined 
within  the  prudent  boundaries  of  the  laws,  which  prohibit  tumultuous 
assemblies,  riots  and  seditions,  by  the  constant  and  due  exertion  of  their 
restrictive  force.  .  .  . 

Time  has  been  when  it  was  judged  expedient  to  enact  laws  against 
those  who  should  teach  any  doctrines  contrary  to  the  categories  of  Aris- 
totle, to  nature's  abhorrence  of  a  vacuum,  to  metaphysical  quiddities, 
and  the  whole  or  the  part  of  the  thing.  We  have  still  in  different  parts 
of  Europe  above  an  hundred  volumes  of  jurisprudence,  on  the  subject  of 


M.  DE  VOLTAIRE  29 

sorcery,  and  on  the  methods  of  distinguishing  true  conjurers  from  false. 
The  custom  of  excommunicating  grasshoppers,  and  other  insects  hurtful 
to  the  grain,  was  once  very  common,  the  form  of  it  subsisting  at  this  day 
in  several  rituals;  the  practice  itself,  however,  is  now  totally  abolished, 
and  Aristotle  rests  in  peace,  together  with  the  wizards  and  grasshoppers. 
Instances  of  these  grave  and  heretofore  important  absurdities  are  innum- 
erable ;  others  have  again  from  time  to  time  arisen,  have  had  their  day, 
and  been  annihilated.  Hence,  should  any  one,  at  this  time,  take  it  into 
liis  head  to  be  a  Carpocratian,  an  Eutichian,  a  Monothelite,  Monophisite, 
Nestorian,  or  Manichean,  what  would  be  the  consequence  ?  He  would 
be  laughed  at,  as  equally  ridiculous  with  a  modem  fine  lady  who  should 
go  to  court  in  the  antique  dress  of  a  ruff  and  farthingale.  .  .  . 

The  rights  of  humanity  are  in  all  cases  founded  on  the  laws  of  nature, 
the  great  and  universal  principle,  both  of  one  and  the  other,  being  this, 
Do  nothing  to  others  which  you  would  not  have  them  do  to  you.  Now  I 
cannot  see  how,  on  this  principle,  one  man  is  authorized  to  say  to  another, 
Believe  what  I  believe,  and  what  you  cannot,or  you  shall  be  put  to  death. 
And  yet  this  is  said  in  direct  terms  in  Portugal,  Spain,  and  at  Goa.  In 
some  other  countries,  indeed,  they  now  content  themselves  with  saying 
only,  Believe  as  I  do,  or  I  shall  hate  you,  and  will  do  you  all  the  mischief 
in  my  power.  What  an  impious  monster  thou  art!  Not  to  be  of  my  religion 
is  to  be  of  none.  You  ought  to  be  held  in  abhorrence  by  your  neighbors, 
ymir  countrymen,  and  by  all  mankind.  .  .  . 

The  right  of  persecution  is  therefore  absurd  and  barbarous;  it  is  the 
right  of  tigers,  tho'  so  much  the  more  horrid,  as  the  tigers  have  a  plea  of 
hunger,  and  devour  men  with  a  view  to  make  them  a  prey;  while  men 
destroy  each  other  for  the  sake  of  mere  problems.  .  .  . 

Should  a  party  of  young  Jesuits,  knowing  that  the  church  holds  repro- 
bates in  abhorrence,  that  the  Jansenists  are  condemned  by  a  bull,  and 
are  therefore  repr6bates;  I  say,  should  these  young  zealots  take  it  into 
their  heads  to  set  fire  to  one  of  the  houses  of  the  fathers  of  the  Oratory, 
because  Quesnel,  one  of  their  fraternity,  was  a  Jansenist;  it  is  certain 
the  government  would  have  a  right  to  punish  those  young  Jesuits. 

In  like  manner,  if  they  inculcate  criminal  maxims,  if  their  institution 
be  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  kingdom,  their  company  may  be  legally 
dissolved,  and  it  is  right  to  abolish  the  Jesuits,  in  order  to  convert  them 
into  good  subjects.  This  abolition  also,  tho'  an  imaginary  evil,  is  to 
them  in  fact  a  real  good;  for  where  is  the  harm  done  them,  in  making 
them  wear  a  short  coat  instead  of  a  cassoc,  and  in  making  them  free  men 
instead  of  slaves  ?  In  the  time  of  peace,  whole  regiments  of  soldiers  are 
disbanded,  and  no  body  complains:  why  then  should  the  Jesuits  make 
such  loud  complaints  that  they  are  disbanded,  in  order  to  obtain  peace  ? 

One  of  the  most  astonishing  examples  of  fanaticism  we  meet  with, 
was  that  of  a  little  sect  in  Denmark ;  the  principle  of  which,  notwithstand- 


30  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

ing,  was  the  best  in  the  world.  These  people  were  desirous  of  procuring 
eternal  salvation  for  their  brethren;  but  the  consequences  of  this  motive 
were  very  singular.  They  knew  that  those  young  children  who  died 
without  being  baptized,  must  be  damned,  and  that  such  as  are  so  happy 
as  to  die  immediately  after  baptism,  enjoy  eternal  life;  they  went  about 
therefore  cutting  the  tliroats  of  all  the  newly-baptized  infants  they  could 
lay  their  hands  on.  By  this  method  they,  doubtless,  procured  them  the 
greatest  happiness  they  were  capable  of;  as  they  preserved  them  at  once 
from  committing  sin,  from  the  miseries  of  the  world,  and  from  hell-fire. 
But  these  charitable  people  did  not  reflect,  that  we  are  not  even  to  do  a 
little  evil  for  the  sake  of  a  great  good ;  that  they  had  no  right  over  the 
lives  of  those  children;  that  most  fathers  and  mothers  are  so  carnally- 
minded,  that  they  had  rather  clasp  their  sons  and  daughters  in  their 
arms,  than  see  their  throats  cut  in  order  to  go  to  paradise;  and  that  finally 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  punish  homicide  by  death,  how- 
ever charitable  might  be  the  intention  of  the  murderer. 


FRIENDS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY:  From  "A  Declaration"  1792;  and  FRIENDS 

TO  THE  LIBERTY  OF  THE  PRESS:    From  "Retolutiona  0/ 

The  First  MeeUng,"  1798 

THE  NECESSITY  of  the  inhabitants  of  every  community  en- 
deavouring to  procure  a  true  knowledge  of  their  rights,  their 
duties,  and  their  interests,  will  not  be  denied,  except  by  those  who  are 
the  slaves  of  prejudice,  or  the  interested  in  the  continuation  of  abuses. 
As  men  who  wish  to  aspire  to  the  title  of  freemen,  we  totally  deny  the 
wisdom  and  the  humanity  of  the  advice  to  approach  the  defects  of  gov- 
ernment with  "pious  awe  and  trembling  solicitude."  What  better 
doctrine  could  the  pope,  or  the  tyrants  of  Europe  desire?  We  think, 
therefore,  that  the  cause  of  truth  and  justice  can  never  be  hurt  by  tem- 
perate and  honest  discussions ;  and  that  a  cause  which  will  not  bear  such 
scrutiny,  must  be  systematically  or  practically  bad.  We  are  sensible 
that  those  who  are  not  friends  to  the  generp,l  good,  have  attempted  to 
inflame  the  public  mind  with  the  cry  of  "danger,"  whenever  men  have 
associated  for  discussing  the  principles  of  government;  and  we  have 
little  doubt  but  such  conduct  will  be  pursued  in  this  place;  we  would, 
therefore,  caution  every  honest  man,  who  has  really  the  welfare  of  the 
nation  at  heart,  to  avoid  being  led  away  by  the  prostituted  clamours 
of  those  who  Uve  on  the  sources  of  corruption.  We  pity  the  fears  of  the 
timorous,  and  we  are  totally  unconcerned  respecting  the  false  alarms 
of  the  venal.  We  are  in  the  pursuit  of  truth,  in  a  peaceable,  calm,  and 
unbiassed  manner;  and  wherever  we  recognize  her  features,  we  will 
embrace  her  as  the  companion  of  happiness,  of  wisdom,  and  of  peace. 
This  is  the  mode  of  our  conduct ;  the  reasons  for  it  will  be  found  in  the 


REV.  ROBERT  HALL  31 

following  declaration  of  our  opinions,  to  the  whole  of  which  each  member 
gives  his  hearty  assent.  .  .   . 

Resolved:  That  the  Liberty  of  the  Press  is  a  right  inseparable  from 
the  Principles  of  a  free  government,  and  essential  to  the  security  of  the 
British  constitution. 

That  this  Hberty  consists  in  the  free  discussion  and  examination  of 
the  principles  of  civil  Government,  and  of  all  matters  of  public  opinion. 

That  we  have  therefore  seen  with  uneasiness  and  alarm  the  formation 
of  certain  societies,  which,  under  the  pretence  of  supporting  the  execu- 
tive magistrate,  and  defending  the  Government  against  sedition,  have 
held  out  general  terrors  against  the  circulation  of  writings,  which  without 
describing  them,  they  term  seditious;  and  entered  into  subscriptions 
for  the  maintenance  of  prosecutions  against  them;  a  proceeding  doubt- 
ful as  to  its  legahty,  unconstitutional  in  its  principle,  oppressive  in  its 
operation,  and  destructive  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Press. 


Rev.  ROBERT  HALL:   From  "An  Apology  for  the  Liberty  of  The  Press,"  1788. 

The  most  capital  advantage  an  enlightened  people  can  enjoy  is  the 
liberty  of  discussing  every  subject  which  can  fall  within  the  compass 
of  the  human  mind;  while  this  remains,  freedom  will  flourish;  but 
should  it  be  lost  or  impaired,  its  principles  will  neither  be  well  under- 
stood or  long  retained.  To  render  the  magistrate  a  judge  of  truth,  and 
engage  his  authority  in  the  suppression  of  opinions,  shews  an  inattention 
to  the  nature  and  design  of  political  society.  When  a  nation  forms  a 
government,  it  is  not  wisdom  but  pmver  which  they  place  in  the  hands 
of  the  magistrate;  from  whence  it  follows,  his  concern  is  only  with 
those  objects  which  power  can  operate  upon.  On  this  account,  the 
administration  of  justice,  the  protection  of  property,  and  the  defence  of 
everj'  member  of  the  community  from  violence  and  outrage,  fall  natur- 
ally within  the  province  of  the  civil  ruler,  for  these  may  all  be  accom- 
plished by  power;  but  an  attempt  to  distinguish  truth  from  error,  and 
to  countenance  one  set  of  opinions  to  the  prejudice  of  another,  is  to 
apply  power  in  a  manner  mischievous  and  absurd.  To  comprehend 
the  reasons  on  which  the  right  of  public  discussion  is  founded,  it  is 
requisite  to  remark  the  difference  between  sentiment  and  conduct.  The 
behamour  of  men  in  society  will  be  influenced  by  motives  drawn  from 
the  prospect  of  good  and  evil :  here  then  is  the  proper  department  of 
government,  as  it  is  capable  of  applying  that  good  and  evil  by  which 
actions  are  determined.  Truth  on  the  contrary  is  quite  of  a  different 
nature,  being  supported  only  by  evidence,  and,  as  when  this  is  presented. 


32  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

we  cannot  withhold  our  assent,  so  where  this  is  wanting,  no  power  or 
authority  can  command  it. 

However  some  may  affect  to  dread  controversy,  it  can  never  be  of 
ultimate  disadvantage  to  the  interests  of  truth,  or  the  happiness  of 
manldnd.  Where  it  is  indulged  in  its  full  extent,  a  multitude  of  ridicu- 
lous opinions  will,  no  doubt,  be  obtruded  upon  the  public;  but  any  ill 
influence  they  may  produce  cannot  continue  long,  as  they  are  sure  to 
be  opposed  with  at  least  equal  ability,  and  that  superior  advantage  which 
is  ever  attendant  on  truth.  The  colours  with  which  wit  or  eloquence 
may  have  adorned  a  false  system  will  gradually  die  away,  sophistry  be 
detected,  and  everything  estimated  at  length  according  to  its  true  value. 
Publications  besides,  like  every  thing  else  that  is  human,  are  of  a  mixed 
nature,  where  truth  is  often  blended  with  falsehood,  and  important 
hints  suggested  in  the  midst  of  much  impertinent  or  pernicious  matter; 
nor  is  there  any  way  of  separating  the  precious  from  the  vile  but  toler- 
ating the  whole.  Where  the  right  of  unlimited  enquiry  is  exerted,  the 
human  faculties  will  be  upon  the  advance;  where  it  is  reUnquished, 
they  will  be  of  necessity  at  a  stand,  and  will  probably  decline. 

If  we  have  recourse  to  experience,  that  kind  of  enlarged  experience 
in  particular  which  history  furnishes,  we  shall  not  be  apt  to  entertain 
any  violent  alarm  at  the  greatest  liberty  of  discussion ;  we  shall  there  see 
that  to  this  we  are  indebted  for  those  improvements  in  arts  and  sciences, 
which  have  meUorated  in  so  great  a  degree  the  condition  of  mankind. 
The  middle  ages,  as  they  are  called,  the  darkest  period  of  which  we  have 
any  particular  accounts,  were  remarkable  for  two  things :  The  extreme 
ignorance  that  prevailed,  and  an  excessive  veneration  for  received  opin- 
ions; circumstances,  which,  having  been  always  united,  operate  on  each 
other,  it  is  plain,  as  cause  and  effect.  The  whole  compass  of  science 
was  in  those  times  subject  to  restraint;  every  new  opinion  was  looked 
upon  as  dangerous.  To  affirm  the  globe  we  inhabit  to  be  round,  was 
deemed  heresy,  and  for  asserting  its  motion,  the  immortal  Gahleo  was 
confined  in  the  prisons  of  the  Inquisition.  Yet,  it  is  remarkable,  so 
little  are  the  human  faculties  fitted  for  restraint,  that  its  utmost  rigour 
was  never  able  to  effect  a  thorough  unanimity,  or  to  preclude  the  most 
alarming  discussions  and  controversies.  For  no  sooner  was  one  point 
settled  than  another  was  started,  and  as  the  articles  on  which  men  pro- 
fessed to  differ  were  always  extremely  few  and  subtle,  they  came  the 
more  easily  into  contact,  and  their  animosities  were  the  more  violent 
and  concentrated.  The  shape  of  the  tonsure,  or  manner  in  which  a 
monk  should  shave  his  head,  would  then  throw  a  whole  kingdom  into 
convulsions.  In  proportion  as  the  world  has  become  more  enlightened, 
this  unnatural  policy  of  restraint  has  retired;  the  sciences  it  has  entirely 
abandoned,  and  has  taken  its  last  stand  on  religion  and  politics.  The 
first  of  these  was  long  considered  of  a  nature  so  peculiarly  sacred,  that 


THOMAS  ERSKINE  33 

every  attempt  to  alter  it,  or  to  impair  the  reverence  for  its  received  in- 
stitutions, was  regarded  under  the  name  of  heresy  as  a  crime  of  the  first 
magnitude.  Yet,  dangerous  as  free  enquiry  may  have  been  looked 
upon,  when  extended  to  the  principles  of  rehgion,  there  is  no  department 
where  it  was  more  necessary,  or  its  interference  more  decidedly  bene- 
ficial. 

.  .  .  Every  thing  that  is  really  excellent  will  bear  examination,  it  will 
even  invite  it,  and  the  more  narrowly  it  is  surveyed,  to  the  more  advan- 
tage will  it  appear. 


THOMAS  ERSKINE:  Fnm  His  Speeches,  about  1795. 

We  assemble  neither  to  reprehend,  nor  to  dictate  to  others,  but  from 
principle  of  pubUc  duty  to  enter  our  solenm  protest  against  the  pro- 
priety or  justice  of  those  Associations,  which  by  the  contagion  of  ex- 
ample are  spreading  fast  over  England,  supported  by  the  Subscriptions 
of  opulent  men  for  the  avowed  object  of  suppressing  and  prosecuting 
Writings;  more  especially  when  accompanied  with  rewards  to  Inform- 
ers ;  and  above  all,  when  these  rewards  are  extended  (of  which  there  are 
instances),  to  question  and  to  punish  opinions  dehvered  even  in  the 
private  intercourses  of  domestic  hfe ;  unmixed  with  any  act  or  mani- 
fested intention  against  the  authority  of  the  Laws.  .... 

"  We  have  further  to  remark,  that  these  objections  to  popular  associ- 
ations for  the  prosecution  of  crimes,  apply  with  double  force  when 
directed  against  the  Press,  than  against  any  other  objects  of  criminal 
justice  which  can  be  described  or  imagined,  .  .  .  The  Press,  then,  as 
it  is  to  be  affected  by  Associations  of  individuals  to  fetter  its  general 
freedom,  wholly  unconnected  with  any  attack  upon  private  character,  is 
a  very  different  consideration;  for  if  the  nation  is  to  be  combined  to 
suppress  writings,  without  further  describing  what  those  writings  are, 
than  by  the  general  denomination — seditious;  and  if  the  exertions  of 
these  combinations  are  not  even  to  be  confined  to  suppress  and  punish 
the  circulation  of  books,  already  condemned  by  the  judgments  of  Courts, 
but  are  to  extend  to  whatever  does  not  happen  to  fall  in  with  their  private 
judgments — ^if  every  writing  is  to  be  prosecuted  which  they  may  not 
have  the  sense  to  understand,  or  the  virtue  to  practise — ^if  no  man  is  to 
write  but  upon  their  principles,  nor  can  read  with  safety  except  what 
they  have  written,  lest  he  should  accidentally  talk  of  what  he  has  read 
— ^no  man  will  venture  either  to  write  or  to  speak  upon  the  topics  of 
Government  or  its  Administration — ^a  freedom  which  has  ever  been 
acknowledged  by  our  greatest  statesmen  and  lawyers  to  be  the  principal 


34  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

safeguard  of  that  Constitution  which  liberty  of  thought  originally 
created,  and  which  a  FREE  PRESS  for  its  circulation  gradually  brought 
to  maturity. 

We  ^lnll  therefore  maintain  and  assert  by  all  legal  means  this  sacred 
and  essential  privilege,  the  Parent  and  Guardian  of  every  other.  We 
vnll  maintain  and  assert  the  right  of  instructing  our  fellow-subjects  by 
every  sincere  and  conscientious  communication  which  may  promote 
the  pubUc  happiness;  and  while  we  render  obedience  to  Government 
and  to  Law,  we  vnll  remember  at  the  same  time,  that  as  they  exist  by 
the  People's  consent  and  for  the  People's  benefit,  they  have  a  right  to 
examine  their  principles,  to  watch  over  their  due  execution,  and  to  preserve 
the  beautiful  structure  of  their  Constitution,  by  pointing  out  as  they 
arise  those  defects  and  corruptions  which  the  hand  of  Time  never  fails 
to  spread  over  the  wisest  of  human  institutions. 

If  in  the  legal  and  peaceable  assertion  of  this  Freedom  we  shall  be 
calumniated  and  persecuted,  we  must  be  contented  to  suffer  in  the  cause 
of  Freedom,  as  our  fathers  before  us  have  suffered;  but  we  will,  like 
our  fathers,  also  persevere  until  we  prevail.  .  .  . 


Men  cannot  communicate  their  free  thoughts  to  one  another  with  a 
lash  held  over  their  heads.  It  is  the  nature  of  everything  that  is  great 
and  useful,  both  in  the  animate  and  inanimate  world,  to  be  wild  and 
irregular — and  we  must  be  contented  to  take  them  with  the  allies  which 
belong  to  them,  or  live  without  them.  Genius  breaks  from  the  fetters 
of  criticism,  but  its  wanderings  are  sanctioned  by  its  majesty  and  wis- 
dom, when  it  advances  in  its  path;  subject  it  to  the  critic,  and  you  tame 
it  into  dullness.  Mighty  rivers  break  down  their  banks  in  the  winter, 
sweeping  away  to  death  the  flocks  which  are  fattened  on  the  soil  that 
they  fertilize  in  the  summer;  the  few  may  be  saved  by  embankment 
from  drowning,  but  the  flock  must  perish  from  hunger.  Tempests 
occasionally  shake  our  dwelHngs  and  dissipate  our  commerce;  but  they 
scourge  before  them  the  lazy  elements,  which  without  them  would 
stagnate  into  pestilence.  In  like  manner,  Liberty  herself,  the  last  and 
best  gift  of  God  to  His  creatures,  must  be  taken  just  as  she  is;  you 
might  bear  her  down  into  bashful  irregularity,  ^nd  shape  her  into  a 
perfect  model  of  severe  scrupulous  law,  but  she  would  then  be  Liberty 
no  longer;  and  you  must  be  content  to  die  under  the  lash  of  this  inex- 
orable justice  which  you  have  exchanged  for  the  banners  of  freedom.  .  .  . 
The  press  must  be  free ;  it  has  always  been  so  and  much  evil  has  been 
corrected  by  it.  If  Government  finds  itself  annoyed  by  it,  let  it  examine 
its  own  conduct  and  it  will  find  the  cause — let  it  amend  it  and  it  will 
find  the  remedy.  ...  A  free  and  unlicensed  press,  in  the  just  and  legal 


THOMAS  ERSKINE  35 

sense  of  the  expression,  has  led  to  all  the  blessings,  both  of  religion  and 
government,  which  Great  Britain,  or  any  [other]  part  of  the  world,  at  this 
moment  enjoys,  and  is  calculated  still  further  to  advance  mankind  to 
higher  degrees  of  civilization  and  happiness.  .  .  .  Government  in  its 
own  estimation  has  been  at  all  times  a  system  of  protection;  but  a  free 
press  has  examined  and  detected  its  errors  and  the  people  have  from 
time  to  time  reformed  them. 

This  is  the  true  value  of  a  free  press :  the  more  men  are  enlightened 
the  better  will  they  be  qualified  to  be  good  subjects  of  a  good  govern- 
ment. .  .  . 

A  spirit  that  will  look  at  nothing  dispassionately,  and  which,  though 
proceeding  from  a  zeal  and  enthusiasm  for  the  most  part  honest  and 
sincere,  is  nevertheless  as  pernicious  as  the  wicked  fury  of  demons, 
when  it  is  loosened  from  the  sober  dominion  of  slow  and  deliberate 
justice. 

These  Associators  to  prosecute,  who  keep  watch  of  late  upon  our 
words  and  upon  pur  looks,  are  associated,  it  seems,  to  preserve  our 
excellent  constitution  from  the  contagion  of  France,  where  an  arbitrary 
and  tyrannous  democracy,  under  the  colour  of  popular  freedom,  de- 
stroys all  the  securities  and  blessings  of  life — but  how  does  it  destroy 
them  ?  How,  but  by  the  very  means  that  these  new  partners  of  execu- 
tive power  would  themselves  employ,  if  we  would  let  them — ^by  inflict- 
ing, from  a  mistaken  barbarous  state  necessity,  the  severest  punish- 
ments for  offenses  never  defined  by  the  law — by  inflicting  them  upon 
suspicion  instead  of  evidence,  and  in  the  blind,  furious,  and  indiscrimi- 
nate zeal  of  persecution,  instead  of  by  the  administration  of  a  sober  and 
impartial  jurisprudence.* 

Such  a  vexatious  system  of  inquisition,  the  disturber  of  household 
peace,  began  and  ended  with  the  Star  Chamber — the  venerable  law  of 
England  never  knew  it — her  noble,  dignified,  and  humane  poUcy  soars 
above  the  little  irregularities  of  our  Uves,  and  disdains  to  enter  our 
closets  without  a  warrant  founded  upon  complaint.  Constructed  by 
man  to  regulate  human  infirmities,  and  not  by  God  to  guard  the  purity 
of  angels,  it  leaves  to  us  our  thoughts,  our  opinions,  and  our  conversa- 
tions, and  punishes  only  overt  acts  of  contempt  and  disobedience  to 
her  authority. 

Every  man  not  intending  to  mislead,  but  seeking  to  enlighten  others 
with  what  his  own  reason  and  conscience,  however  erroneously,  have 
dictated  to  him  as  truth,  may  address  himself  to  the  universal  intelli- 
gence of  a  whole  nation,  either  upon  the  subject  of  governments  in  gen- 
eral, or  upon  that  of  his  own  individual  country.  He  may  analyze  the 
principles  of  its  constitutions — point  out  its  errors  and  defects — examine 
and  publish  its  corruption — ^warn  his  fellow-citizens  against  their  ruin- 

*How  exactly  this  all  describes  our  conditions  under  vice  societies  and  obscenity  laws  ! 


86  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

ous  consequences,  and  exert  his  whole  faculties  in  pointing  out  the  most 
advantageous  change  in  establishments  which  he  considers  to  be  radi- 
cally defective  or  sliding  from  their  object  by  abuse.  All  this,  every 
subject  of  this  country  has  a  right  to  do,  if  he  contemplates  only  what 
he  thinks  would  be  for  its  advantage,  and  but  seeks  to  change  the  pub- 
lic mind  by  the  conviction  which  flows  from  reasonings  dictated  by 
conscience. 

TUNIS  WORTH  AN:  Frcm  "  Treatise  Concerning  Political  Inquiry  and 
Liberty  of  The  Press,"  1800. 

IT  HAS  been  practically  maintained  by  the  advocates  of  mystery 
that  a  people  can  be  governed  only  by  stratagem  and  imposture. 
.  .  .  But  by  what  unheard-of  arguments  can  it  be  maintained  that  the 
exercise  of  the  rational  faculties  is  criminal  or  prejudicial  to  the  general 
welfare?  Until  this  extraordinary  position  is  established,  no  human 
legislature  can  deny  our  right  to  the  most  unbounded  latitude  of  inves- 
tigation. ... 

It  must  ever  remain  the  inherent  and  incontrovertible  right  of  society 
to  dissolve  its  poUtical  constitution,  whenever  the  voice  of  public  opinion 
has  declared  such  dissolution  to  be  essential  to  the  general  welfare. 
Society  must,  therefore,  necessarily  possess  the  unUmited  right  to  ex- 
amine and  investigate.  If  government  is  the  instrument  which  they 
adopted  for  the  promotion  of  general  good;  if  it  is  the  creature  which 
they  invested  with  powers  for  effecting  the  benevolent  design  of  social 
felicity,  it  is  society  that  must  determine  whether  these  purposes  have 
been  reaUzed,  or  how  far  they  have  been  departed  from.  It  follows, 
therefore,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  the  government  which  at- 
tempts to  coerce  the  progress  of  opinion,  or  abolish  the  freedom  of  in- 
vestigation into  political  affairs,  materially  violates  the  most  essential 
principles  of  the  social  state.  .  .  . 

It  is  a  position  universally  true,  that  knowledge  is  the  only  preserva- 
tive against  the  inordinate  excitement  of  the  passions.  It  is  the  genuine 
and  incessant  operation  of  judgment  to  estimate  the  consequences  of 
human  action,  and  to  decide  upon  its  propriety,  from  the  effects  which 
are  probable  to  result.  .  .  .  Knowledge  is  the  only  guardian  principle 
which  can  rescue  us  from  the  fatal  despotism  of  irregular  excitement. 
The  extension  of  science  is  the  only  rational  method  of  estabhshing  the 
universal  empire  of  truth  and  virtue.  .  .  . 

It  will  not  perhaps  be  traveUng  too  far  into  the  regions  of  speculation, 
to  assert,  that  in  proportion  as  we  become  proficient  in  knowledge,  our 
conduct  will  be  governed  by  the  regular  influence  of  motive ;  the  number 
of  our  voluntary  actions  will  receive  perpetual  accession,  while  those 
which  are  automatic  will  proportionately  decrease.  ...  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  the  government  which  attempts  to  impede  the  universal 


TUNIS  WORTMAN  37 

dissemination  of  science,  or  to  restrain  the  unlimited  career  of  intellect, 
may  be  classed  among  the  most  inveterate  enemies  of  the  human 
species.  .  .  . 

The  government  that  interferes  with  the  progress  of  opinion,  subverts 
the  essential  order  of  the  social  state.  .  .  . 

Is  it  not  of  all  absurdities  the  most  incongruous,  that  government 
should  dictate  perpetual  silence  and  torpor  to  those  who  excel  in  intel- 
lect? On  the  other  hand,  can  it  exercise  a  more  atrocious  despotism 
than  to  debar  those  who  are  inferior  in  intelUgence,  from  that  intellect- 
ual improvement  which  is  the  characteristic  of  our  species  ?  .  .  . 

The  formation  of  general  opinion  upon  correct  and  salutary  prin- 
ciples, requires  the  unbiased  exercise  of  individual  intellect;  neither 
prejudice,  authority,  or  terror,  should  be  suffered  to  impede  the  liberty 
of  discussion;  no  undue  influence  should  tyrannize  over  mind;  every 
man  should  be  left  to  the  independent  exercise  of  his  reflection;  all 
should  be  permitted  to  communicate  their  ideas  with  the  energy  and 
ingenuousness  of  truth.  .  .  . 

There  is  no  species  of  tyranny  more  pernicious  in  its  consequences 

than  that  which  is  exerted  to  impede  the  progress  of  intellect.  .  .  . 

Slavery  will  inevitably  produce  mental  debility  and  degradation.     Un- 

I  less  the  mind  is  conscious  of  liberty  to  reflect  and  expatiate,  it  will  be 

wholly  incapable  of  sublime  and  energetic  exertion.  .  .  . 

Unless  individuals  are  permitted  to  reflect  and  communicate  their 
sentiments  upon  every  topic,  it  is  impossible  that  they  should  progress 
in  knowledge.  .  .  .  Without  establishing  the  liberty  of  enquiry,  and 
the  right  of  disseminating  our  opinions,  it  must  always  be  our  portion 
to  remain  in  a  state  of  barbarism,  wretchedness,  and  degradation.  .  .  . 

It  is  impossible  that  the  imagination  should  conceive  a  more  horrible 
and  pernicious  tyranny  than  that  which  should  restrain  Intercourse 
of  Thought.  .  .  . 

It  is  the  constant  tendency  of  Licentiousness  to  defeat  its  own  pur- 
poses. In  a  state  of  Society  which  admits  of  continual  and  unrestrained 
discussion,  the  triumph  of  Falsehood  can  never  be  of  permanent  dura- 
tion. .  .  . 

To  invest  the  public  magistrate  with  the  power  of  restricting  public 
Opinion,  would  be  to  trust  the  progress  of  Information  to  the  mercy 
and  pleasure  of  a  Government!  More  formidable  dangers  are  justly 
to  be  apprehended  from  arming  the  constituted  organs  of  Authority 
with  a  power  to  arrest  the  career  of  Human  Intellect,  than  from  all  the 
evils  attributable  to  Licentiousness.  .  .  . 

Prejudice  may  boast  of  her  fascination,  and  Tyranny  may  exult  in 
his  chains;  Superstition  may  administer  the  slumbering  opiate,  and 
Delusion  may  continue  to  practise  her  magical  artifices:  the  Rays  of 
Intellectual  Light  will  still  proceed  to  brighten  and  increase,  and  the 


38  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

days  of  Liberty  and  Science  succeed  to  the  gloomy  night  of  Ignorance 
and  Despotism. 

JEREMY  BENTHAM:  From  "On  Liberty  of  The  Press  and  Public 
Discussion,"  1821 

Against  the  allowance  of  this  Uberty  [of  the  press],  considered 
with  a  view  to  its  effect  on  the  goodness  of  the  government,  no  argu- 
ments that  have  been,  or  may  be  adduced,  will  bear  the  test  of  examina- 
tion. 

1.  First  comes  dangerousness.  Dangerous,  it  always  and  every- 
where is;  for  it  may  lead  to  insurrection,  and  thus  to  civil  war;  and 
such  is  its  continual  tendency. 

Answer.  In  all  liberty,  there  is  more  or  less  of  danger;  and  so  there 
is  in  all  power.  The  question  is — ^in  which  is  there  most  danger — ^in 
power  limited  by  this  check,  or  in  power  without  this  check  to  limit  it. 
In  those  poUtical  communities  in  which  this  check  is  in  its  greatest 
vigour,  the  condition  of  the  members,  in  all  ranks  and  classes  taken 
together  is,  by  universal  acknowledgment,  the  happiest.  These  are 
the  Anglo-American  United  States,  and  the  Bangdom  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland.  In  the  Republic,  this  Uberty  is  allowed  by  law,  and  ex- 
ists in  perfection;  in  the  Kingdom  it  is  prescribed  by  law,  but  con- 
tinues to  have  place,  in  considerable  degree,  in  spite  of  law. 

Still  the  same  division — ^the  same  most  simple  and  commodious 
division — of  human  kind  into  two  classes :  The  good,  those  by  whom 
our  purposes  are  served;  the  had,  those  by  whom  they  are  thwarted; 
and  no  sooner  is  it  seen  or  thought,  that  the  good  creatures,  who,  till 
this  moment  served  our  purposes,  thwart  them,  than  their  essence  is 
changed,  and  they  become  had  ones.  Yes;  this  is  the  division  you  may 
see  made  by  legitimacy  all  the  world  over.  Above,  all  excellence; 
beneath,  all  depravity.  Such  is  the  arrangement — the  systematical 
arrangement — of  which  Despotism  is  the  Linnaeus.-  In  the  EngUsh 
statute  book,  not  a  page  in  which  it  is  not  assumed  and  acted  upon. 
Most  excellent  Majesty!  O  yes!  most  excellent;  but  Most  Excellent 
in  what?  And  from  Majesty  down  to  simple  Knighthood  runs  the 
scale  of  excellence.  .  .  . 

Behold  then  the  distinction  between  a  government  that  is  des- 
potic, and  one  that  is  not  so.  In  an  undespotic  government,  some 
eventual  faculty  of  effectual  resistence,  and  consequent  change  in  gov- 
ernment, is  purposely  left,  or  rather  given,  to  the  people. 

Not  inconsistent  with  government,  on  the  contrary,  indispensable 
to  good  government,  is  the  existence  of  this  faculty.  Not  inconsistent; 
for  so  experience,  as  you  will  see,  proves. 

3.  Nejct  to  nothing  is  the  danger  from  the  existence,  in  comparison 


JEREMY  BENTHAM  39 

with  that  from  the  non-existence,  of  this  faculty.  Everywhere,  and 
at  all  times,  on  the  part  of  the  subject  many,  howsoever  treated, 
exists  the  disposition  to  obsequiousness.  Birth,  observation  of  the 
direction  taken  by  rewards  and  punishments,  by  praise  and  dispraise, 
and  of  the  habit,  language  of  all  around — by  the  concurrence  of  all 
these  causes  is  the  disposition  produced,  and  kept  up. 

To  alter  or  weaken  this  disposition,  in  such  sort  as  to  produce  revo- 
lution in  government,  or  considerable  mischief  to  person  or  property 
of  individuals,  nothing  ever  has  sufficed,  or  ever  can  suffice,  short  of 
the  extremity  of  misrule.  .  .  . 

Of  a  government  that  is  not  despotic,  it  is  therefore  the  essential 
character,  even  to  cherish  the  disposition  to  eventual  resistance.  On 
some  other  occasion  you  shall  see — such  of  you  as  will  honour  my  pages 
with  a  glance — ^how  eflFectually  and  pointedly  that  indispensable  element 
of  security  has  been  cherished;  cherished  by  the  only  government  that 
stands  upon  a  rock — the  government  of  the  Anglo-American  United 
States.  Meantime  see  to  this  purpose — such,  if  any  of  you,  as  have  in 
hand  the  means — ^the  liberticide  Act  of  Congress,  approved  July  14, 1798; 
not  forgetting  the  marginal  note  indicating  the  glorious  expiration  of  it. 

Instruments  necessary  to  the  existence  of  such  a  disposition,  in  a 
state  adequate  to  the  production  of  the  effect,  are  instruction,  excitation, 
correspondence.  To  the  understanding  applies  instruction;  to  the  wiU, 
excitation ;  both  are  necessary  to  appropriate  action  and  correspondent 
effect:  instruction  and  excitation,  in  the  case  of  each  individual  taken 
separately;  correspondence,  for  the  sake  of  concert  amongst  the  number 
of  individuals  requisite  and  sufficient  for  the  production  of  the  ultimate 
effect.  Co-extensive  with  the  instruction  and  the  excitation  must  be 
the  correspondence;  and,  therefore,  as  far  as  depends  upon  the  govern- 
ment, under  the  government,  if  not  a  despotic  one,  will  be  the  facility 
allowed  and  afforded  to  correspondence.  When,  to  a  national  purpose, 
exertions  on  a  national  scale  are  necessary,  exertions  made  without 
concert  (need  it  be  said)  are  made  without  effect. 

By  instruction,  excitation,  and  faculty  of  correspondence — by  these 
three  instruments  in  conjunction — and  not  by  any  one  or  two  of  them 
alone — can  the  national  mind  be  kept  in  a  state  of  appropriate  prepara- 
tion; a  state  of  preparation  for  eventual  resistance.  It  is  by  the  con- 
junct application  of  all  these  instruments,  that  minds  are  put  and  kept 
in  a  proper  state  of  discipUne,  as  bodies  are  by  the  military  exercise. 

From  this  state  of  full  and  constant  preparation  result  two  perfectly 
distinct,  though  so  intimately  connected,  uses:  1.  Effecting  a  change 
in  government,  if  ever  and  when  necessary.  2.  In  the  mean  time,  pre^ 
venting,  or  at  least  retarding,  the  necessity,  by  the  constant  application 
of  a  check  to  misrule  as  applied  to  individual  cases — to  misrule  in  all 
its  several  shapes. 


40  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Necessary  to  instruction — to  excitation — ^in  a  word  to  a  state  of  prepa- 
ration directed  to  this  purpose  is — (who  does  not  see  it  ?)  the  perfectly 
unrestrained  communication  of  ideas  on  every  subject  within  the  field 
of  government;  the  conmiunication,  by  vehicles  of  all  sorts — ^by  signs 
of  all  sorts;  signs  to  the  ear — signs  to  the  eye — by  spoken  language — 
by  written,  including  printed,  language — by  the  liberty  of  the  tongtie, 
by  the  liberty  of  the  writing  desk,  by  the  liberty  of  the  post  office — by 
the  Uberty  of  the  press. 

The  characteristic  then  of  an  undespotic  government — in  a  word,  of 
every  government  that  has  any  tenable  claim  to  the  appellation  of  a 
good  government  is,  the  allowing,  and  giving  facility  to,  this  communica- 
tion, and  this,  not  only  for  instruction,  but  for  excitation — not  only  for 
instruction  and  excitation,  but  also  for  correspondence;  and  this  again 
for  the  purpose  of  affording  and  keeping  on  foot  every  facility  for  event- 
ual resistance — for  resistance  to  government,  and  thence,  should  ne- 
cessity require,  for  a  change  in  government. 

In  all  this  there  is  nothing  new;  nothing  that  is  new,  either  in  theory 
or  in  practice.  Ix)ok  around  you,  my  friends;  you  will  see  it  in  theory, 
and  at  the  same  time  in  corresponding  practice.  In  the  Anglo-Ameri- 
can United  States  every  body  sees  it  is  in  practice.  In  that  declaration 
of  independence,  which  stands  at  the  head  of  their  constitutional  code, 
any  body  may  see  it  plainly  and  openly  avowed.  .  .  . 

Now  for  the  promised  test,  by  which,  when  apphed  to  a  man,  it  may 
be  seen  whether  the  government  he  means  to  give  his  support  to  is  of 
the  one  sort  or  of  the  other.  Put  to  him  this  question:  Will  you.  Sir, 
or  will  you  not,  concur  in  putting  matters  on  such  a  footing,  in  respect 
to  the  liberty  of  the  press,  and  the  liberty  of  pubUc  discussion,  that,  at 
the  hands  of  the  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government,  a  man 
shall  have  no  more  fear  from  speaking  and  writing  against  them,  than 
from  speaking  and  writing  for  them  ?  If  his  answer  be  yes,  the  govern- 
ment he  declares  in  favour  of,  is  an  undespotic  one ;  if  his  answer  be  no^ 
the  government  he  declares  in  favour  of,  is  a  despotic  one.  If  yes,  his 
principles  as  to  this  matter,  are  those  of  the  Anglo-American  United 
States,  and,  as  you  will  see,  if  you  have  not  seen  already,  those  of  the 

Spanish  constitutional  code;   if  no,  they  are  those  of ,  and  of  the 

Emperor  of  Morocco. 

As  to  the  evil  which  results  from  a  censorship,  it  is  impossible  to  meas- 
ure it,  because  it  is  impossible  to  tell  where  it  ends. 


Prof.  THOMAS  COOPER:  From  "Liberty  of  The  Press,"  18S0. 

The  hberty  of  the  press  is  a  phrase  in  everybody's  mouth.     It  forms 
one  of  the  commonplace  panegyrics  of  what  are  called  free  governments. 


THOMAS  COOPER  41 

It  is  one  of  the  boasts  of  those  who  admire  that  nonentity,  the  British  con- 
stitution. It  is  supposed  to  flourish  particularly  in  these  United  States 
and  to  form  a  distinguishing  feature  of  our  American  Governments. 
I  hardly  know  in  which  of  them  to  look  for  it. 

I  think  there  is  no  question  within  the  whole  range  of  human  inquiry 
of  equal  importance  to  the  present  one.  It  is,  whether  the  people  should 
doom  themselves  to  voluntary  ignorance,  to  imperfect  knowledge, 
and  place  themselves,  bound  and  blind-fold,  under  the  guidance  of  men 
who  assume  to  govern  them .  They  have  been  told  by  governments  and  by 
the  priesthood,  that  the  best  way  of  arriving  at  truth  is  by  hearing  only 
one  side  of  the  question;  and  they  have  legislated  and  acted  in  con- 
formity with  this  persuasion. 

Of  late,  men  begin  to  suspect  that  there  is  no  satisfactory  access  to 
knowledge  upon  pubUc  questions,  but  by  means  of  public  discussion; 
and  that  no  limit  can  be  put  to  the  right  of  discussion,  by  previous  pro- 
hibition or  by  subsequent  punishment,  that  can  operate  for  the  good  of 
the  people.  They  require  light,  and  only  light.  They  must  judge 
and  act  unwisely,  if  they  judge  and  act  in  the  dark. 

A  strong  suspicion  now  prevails  that  the  human  intellect  has  been 
kept  in  fetters,  by  men  who  have  boldly  assumed  superior  wisdom,  that 
their  dictates  might  pass  without  inquiry — men  who  professedly  deal 
in  concealment,  darkness,  and  mystery,  and  who  fatten  upon  human 
ignorance. 

Those  who  are  averse  to  have  their  own  opinions  examined,  are 
manifestly  actuated  more  by  attachment  to  their  own  tenets  than  to 
truth.  They  arrogate  to  themselves  a  privilege  which  they  deny  to 
their  neighbor;  and  they  suggest  the  suspicious  inquiry — Is  there  any 
concealed  interest  in  the  back  ground  that  causes  discussion  to  be  dread- 
ed and  opposed  ? 

The  law,  unfortunately,  has  always  been  retained  on  the  side  of  power; 
laws  have  uniformly  been  enacted  for  the  protection  and  perpetuation 
of  power. 

Every  politician,  every  member  of  the  clerical  profession,  ought  to 
incur  the  reasonable  suspicion  of  being  an  interested  supporter  of  false 
doctrines,  who  becomes  angry  at  opposition,  and  endeavors  to  cast  an 
odium  on  free  inquiry.  Fraud  and  falsehood  only  dread  examination. 
Truth  invites  it.  Public  discussion  is  the  spear  of  Ithuriel;  the  fiend 
Imposture  starts  up  trembling  at  its  touch. 

Speculative  opinions  are  best  left  to  fight  out  their  own  harmless  bat- 
tles by  means  of  a  free  press.  They  are  never  dangerous  to  the  commu- 
nity, but  when  the  magistrate  takes  a  side. 

All  such  laws  and  decisions  as  cast  a  stigma  of  reproach  or  disability 
on  any  man  for  his  opinions  on  theological  or  moral  subjects,  whatever 
they  may  be,  are  laws  and  decisions  in  favor  of  the  alliance  between 


42  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

church  and  state;  they  operate  for  the  encouragement  and  protection 
of  legal  falsehood  and  hypocrisy.  They  stigmatize  conscientious  verac- 
ity as  among  the  worst  of  crimes,  and  punish  it  accordingly.  They 
tacit'y  admit  the  temptation  to  utter  preliminary  falsehood,  as  the  best 
possible  test  of  the  inclination  to  tell  truth.  They  take  for  granted,  that 
a  disposition  to  speak  the  truth  fearlessly  and  at  all  hazards,  is  a  sure 
sign  that  the  person  in  question  is  unworthy  of  all  belief!  And  by  the 
courtesy  of  the  country,  in  many  states,  this  is  called  Law.  .  .  .  Can 
we  be  made  wiser  by  half  information,  or  see  more  clearly  in  proportion 
as  our  field  of  vision  is  obstructed  ? 

Indeed,  no  opinion  or  doctrine,  of  whatever  nature  it  be,  or  whatever 
be  its  tendency,  ought  to  be  suppressed.  For  it  is  either  manifestly  true, 
or  it  is  manifestly  false,  or  its  truth  or  falsehood  is  dubious.  Its  tendency 
is  manifestly  good,  or  manifestly  bad,  or  it  is  dubious  and  concealed. 
There  are  no  other  assignable  conditions,  no  other  functions  of  the 
problem. 

In  the  case  of  its  being  manifestly  true,  and  of  good  tendency,  there 
can  be  no  dispute.  Nor  in  the  case  of  its  being  manifestly  otherwise; 
for  by  the  terms  it  can  mislead  nobody.  If  its  truth  or  its  tendency  be 
dubious,  it  is  clear  that  nothing  can  bring  the  good  to  light,  or  expose  the 
evil,  but  full  and  free  discussion.  Until  this  takes  place,  a  plausible 
fallacy  may  do  harm;  but  discussion  is  sure  to  elicit  the  truth,  and  fix 
public  opinion  on  a  proper  basis;  and  nothing  else  can  do  it. 

Criminality  can  only  be  predicated  where  there  is  an  obstinate,  un- 
reasonable refusal  to  consider  any  kind  of  evidence,  but  what  exclusively 
supports  one  side  of  a  question. 

It  follows  that  errors  of  the  understanding  must  be  treated  by  appeals 
to  the  understanding.  That  argument  should  be  opposed  by  argument, 
and  fact  by  fact.  That  fine  and  imprisonment  are  bad  forms  of  syl- 
logism, well  calculated  to  irritate,  but  powerless  for  refutation.  They 
may  suppress  truth,  they  can  never  elicit  it. 

A  sound  and  healthy  state  of  public  feeling  depends  everywhere 
upon  the  healthy  state  of  public  information ;  and  this  can  have  no  other 
basis  but  the  freedom  of  public  discussion.  .  .  .  Let  us  hear  what  can 
be  said  on  all  sides;  and  we  will  then  decide. 

If  it  be  desirable  to  arrive  at  truth  in  our  inquiries;  if  it  be  desirable 
to  avoid  error,  we  must  admit  every  opinion  and  doctrine  liable  to  doubt 
or  dispute,  to  be  examined  on  every  side,  and  by  all  manner  of  persons 
who  take  an  interest  in  the  question.  Some  will  bring  more,  some  less 
talent  and  knowledge  to  bear  upon  it;  some  will  present  it  to  us  under 
one  aspect,  some  under  another.  At  length,  this  untrammelled  license 
of  discussion  will  put  us  in  possession  of  the  means  of  deciding  accurately, 
which  we  can  acquire  in  no  other  way.  In  all  matters  of  science,  this 
truth  is  universally  acknowledged,  and  this  course  is  generally  adopted. 


THOMAS  COOPER  48 

If    in     scientific,     why    not    in     questions     of     every     other     kind  ? 

Error  not  brought  to  view,  but  concealed ;  error  operating  not  openly, 
but  privately,  may  be  dangerous;  for  it  has  no  enemy  to  detect  it,  and 
nothing  to  fear.  Publish  it,  oppose  it,  discuss  it,  and  the  vapor  is  dissi- 
pated before  the  beams  of  truth. 

The  public  interest  requires  that  every  difficult  question  should  be 
patiently  and  deliberately  examined  on  all  sides;  under  every  view  in 
which  it  presents  itself;  that  no  light  should  be  excluded;  but  evidence 
and  argument  of  every  kind,  should  have  their  full  bearing.  It  is  thus 
that  the  doubtful  truths  of  one  generation  become  the  axioms  of  the 
next;  and  that  the  painful  results  of  laborious  investigation  and  deep 
thinking  gradually  descend  from  the  closets  of  the  learned,  and  pervade 
the  mass  of  the  community  for  the  common  improvement  of  mankind. 

It  is  a  settled  point,  that  we  are  not  to  argue  against  the  use  of  a  thing 
from  the  possibility  of  its  being  abused ;  for  to  what  good  thing  will  not 
this  objection  apply?  ,  .  .  The  argument  against  the  expediency  of 
divulging  an  opinion,  although  it  be  true,  from  the  possibility  of  its 
being  perverted,  has  been  so  much  hackneyed,  and  has  served  so  often 
as  the  last  resort  of  confuted  abettors  of  political  and  ecclesiastical 
tyranny,  in  particular,  that  every  man's  literature,  who  has  attended  to 
the  history  of  any  important  opinion,  ethical,  theological,  or  political, 
rejects  it,  as  the  mark  of  a  bad  cause — as  the  last  refuge  of  refuted  error. 

If  I  were  asked  what  opinion,  from  the  commencement  of  history  to 
the  present  day,  has  been  productive  of  the  most  injur}'  to  mankind, 
I  should  answer  without  hesitation,  the  inexpediency  of  publishing 
sentiments  of  supposed  bad  tendency.  It  is  this  opinion,  principally,  that 
has  filled  Europe  with  bloodshed,  almost  unremittingly,  for  seventeen 
centuries;  for  it  is  this  opinion  that  has  induced  the  tyrannical  inter- 
ference of  the  civil  power,  not  only  in  political  discussions,  but  in  ques- 
tions of  mere  theoretical  controversy:  and  punished  men,  without  num- 
ber, for  supposed  mistakes  in  matters  of  opinion,  whose  lives  and  man- 
ners were  innocent  and  irreproachable — as  if  opinions  might  be  adopted 
or  rejected  at  pleasure,  and  any  deviation  from  the  prescribed  standard 
was  a  crime. 

It  is  better  for  the  public  to  take  the  risk  of  the  evils,  and  for  individ- 
uals to  suffer  the  inconvenience  resulting  from  a  press  without  other 
restraints  than  those  which  are  consequent  on  the  obligations  of  good 
motive  and  justifiable  end,  than  for  the  state  to  incur  the  danger  resulting 
from  any  uncertainty  in  the  tenure  of  the  liberty,  which,  as  it  declares, 
is  "  essential  to  the  security  of  its  freedom." 

One  man  cheerfully  goes  to  prison  for  his  opinions;  another  receives 
a  thousand  pounds  for  teaching  the  opposite  opinions.  Which  of  the 
two  would  be  deemed  the  better  evidence  in  a  court  of  justice  ? 

The  general  pretence,  whenever  it  could  beset  up,  in  cases  of  blasphemy, 


44  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

was  the  vulgarity  and  insolence  of  the  offenders,  forgetting  the  zealous 
Protestants  abuse  of  the  Jews,  and  their  polite  denunciations  of  the  great 
Scarlet  Whore,  that  sitteth  on  seven  hills,  playing  the  harlot,  and  making 
the  people  drunk  with  her  abominations.  They  appear  not  to  be  aware 
that  hard  and  harsh  language  against  what  is  deemed  to  be  imposture 
and  hypocrisy,  is  not  only  their  own  language,  but  is  in  fact  countenanced 
by  23  of  Matthew  and  23  of  Acts.  They  forgot  that  it  is  unjust  to 
expect  the  mild  language  of  a  well  educated  gentlemen  from  those  who 
have  been  accustomed  to  vulgar  society;  and  who  express  what  they 
deem  honest  feelings,  in  the  terms  they  have  unfortunately  been  accus- 
tomed to  hear  and  to  use.  They  forgot  that  there  is  no  known  or  pre- 
cise law  for  indicting  mere  coarseness  of  language. 


JOHN  STUART  MILL:  From  "An  Essay  on  Liberty,"  1859. 

THE  TIME,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  is  gone  by  when  any  defence  would 
be  necessary  of  the  "  liberty  of  the  press  "  as  one  of  the  securities 
against  corrupt  or  tyrannical  government.  No  argument,  we  may  sup- 
pose, can  now  be  needed,  against  permitting  a  legislature  or  an  executive, 
not  identified  in  interest  with  the  people,  to  prescribe  opinions  to  them, 
and  determine  what  doctrines  or  what  arguments  they  shall  be  allowed 
to  hear.  This  aspect  of  the  question,  besides,  has  been  so  often  and  so 
triumphantly  enforced  by  preceding  writers,  that  it  needs  not  be  specially 
insisted  on  in  this  place.  Though  the  law  of  England  on  the  subject 
of  the  press,  is  as  servile  to  this  day  as  it  was  in  the  time  of  the  Tudors, 
there  is  little  danger  of  its  being  actually  put  in  force  against  political 
discussion,  except  during  some  temporary  panic,  when  fear  of  insurrec- 
tion drives  ministers  and  judges  from  their  propriety;*  and,  speaking 
generally,  it  is  not,  in  constitutional  countries,  to  be  apprehended  that 

♦These  words  had  scarcely  been  written,  when,  as  if  to  give  them  an  emphatic  contradiction, 
occurred  the  Government  Press  Prosecutions  of  1858.  That  ill-judged  interference  with  the 
liberty  of  public  discussion  has  not,  however,  induced  me  to  alter  a  single  word  in  the  text,  nor 
has  it  at  all  weakened  my  conviction  that,  moments  of  panic  exepted,  the_  era  of  pains  and 
penalties  for  political  discussion  has,  in  our  own  country,  passed  away.  For,  in  the  first  place, 
the  prosecutions  were  not  persisted  in;  and,  in  the  second,  they  were  never,  properly  speaking, 
political  prosecutions.  The  offence  charged  was  not  that  of  criticising  institutions,  or  the  acts 
or  persons  of  rulers,  but  of  circulating  what  was  deemed  an  immoral  doctrine,  the  lawfulness  of 
Tyrannicide. 

If  the  arguments  of  the  present  chapter  are  of  any  validity,  there  ought  to  exist  the  fullest 
liberty  of  professing  and  discussing,  as  a  matter  of  ethical  conviction,  any  doctrine,  however 
immoral  it  may  be  considered.  It  would,  therefore,  be  irrelevant  and  out  of  place  to  examine 
here  whether  the  doctrine  of  Tyrannicide  deserves  that  title.  I  shall  content  myself  with  saying 
that  the  subject  has  been  at  all  times  one  of  the  open  questions  of  morals;  that  the  act  of  a  pri- 
vate citizen  in  striking  down  a  criminal,  who,  by  raising  himself  above  the  law,  has  placed  him- 
self beyond  the  reach  of  legal  punishment  or  control,  has  been  accounted  by  whole  nations,  and 
by  some  of  the  best  and  wisest  of  men,  not  a  crime,  but  an  act  of  exalted  virtue;  and  that, 
right  or  wrong,  it  is  not  of  the  nature  of  assassination,  but  of  civil  war.  As  such,  I  hold  that 
the  instigation  to  it,  in  a  specific  case,  may  be  a  proper  subject  of  punishment,  but  only  if  an 
overt  act  has  followed,  and  at  least  a  probable  connection  can  be  established  between  the  act 
and  the  instigation.  Even  then,  it  is  not  a  foreign  government,  but  the  very  government  as- 
sailed, which  alone,  in  the  exercise  of  self-defence,  can  legitimately  punish  attacks  directed 
against  its  own  existence. 


JOHN   STUART   MILL  45 

the  government,  whether  completely  responsible  to  the  people  or  not, 
will  often  attempt  to  control  the  expression  of  opinion,  except  when  in 
doing  so  it  makes  itself  the  organ  of  the  general  intolerance  of  the  pub- 
lic* Let  us  suppose,  therefore,  that  the  government  is  entirely  at  one 
with  the  people,  and  never  thinks  of  exerting  any  power  of  coercion  un- 
less in  agreement  with  what  it  conceives  to  be  their  voice.  But  I  deny 
the  right  of  the  people  to  exercise  such  coercion,  either  by  themselves 
or  by  their  government.  The  power  itself  is  illegitimate.  The  best 
government  has  no  more  title  to  it  than  the  worst.  It  is  as  noxious,  or 
more  noxious,  when  exerted  in  accordance  with  public  opinion,  than 
when  in  opposition  to  it.  If  all  mankind  minus  one,  were  of  one  opinion, 
and  only  one  person  were  of  the  contrary  opinion,  mankind  would  be 
no  more  justified  in  silencing  that  one  person,  than  he,  if  he  had  the 
power,  would  be  justified  in  silencing  mankind.  Were  an  opinion  a 
personal  possession  of  no  value  except  to  the  owner;  if  to  be  obstructed 
in  the  enjoyment  of  it  were  simply  a  private  injury,  it  would  make  some 
difference  whether  the  injury  was  inflicted  on  only  a  few  persons  or  on 
many.  But  the  peculiar  evil  of  silencing  the  expression  of  an  opinion 
is,  that  it  is  robbing  the  human  race,  posterity  as  well  as  the  existing 
generation;  those  who  dissent  from  the  opinion,  still  more  than  those 
who  hold  it.  If  the  opinion  is  right,  they  are  deprived  of  the  opportunity 
of  exchanging  error  for  truth :  if  wrong,  they  lose,  what  is  almost  as  great 
a  benefit,  the  clearer  perception  and  Uvelier  impression  of  truth,  pro- 
duced by  its  collision  with  error. 

It  is  necessary  to  consider  separately  these  two  hypotheses,  each  of 
which  has  a  distinct  branch  of  the  argument  corresponding  to  it.     We 
can  never  be  sure  that  the  opinion  we  are  endeavoring  to  stifle  is  a  false 
opinion ;  and  if  we  were  sure,  stifling  it  would  be  an  evil  still. 

First :  The  opinion  which  it  is  attempted  to  suppress  by  authority  may 
possibly  be  true.  Those  who  desire  to  suppress  it,  of  course  deny  its 
truth;  but  they  are  not  infallible.  They  have  no  authority  to  decide 
the  question  for  all  mankind,  and  exclude  every  other  person  from  the 
means  of  judging.  To  refuse  a  hearing  to  an  opinion,  because  they  are 
sure  that  it  is  false,  is  to  assume  that  their  certainty  is  the  same  thing  as 
absolute  certainty.  All  silencing  of  discussion  is  an  assumption  of  in- 
fallibility. Its  condemnation  may  be  allowed  to  rest  on  this  common 
argument,  not  the  worse  for  being  common. 

Unfortunately  for  the  good  sense  of  mankind,  the  fact  of  their  falUbility 
is  far  from  carrying  the  weight  in  their  practical  judgment  which  is 
always  allowed  to  it  in  theory;  for,  while  every  one  well  knows  himself 

♦fThe  general  intolerance  manifested  itself  soon  after  Mr.  Mill  had  written.  Statues  came  into 
existence  all  over  the  United  States,  proscribing  all  sorts  of  literature,  including  medical  books, 
dealing  with  the  subject  of  sex.  Later  came  also  those  laws  which  in  some  American  States 
make  it  a  crime  to  express  the  belief  that  government,  through  their  wars  and  tyrannies,  do  more 
harm  than  good.  With  this  came  abo  immigration  laws  which  deny  foreigners  admisaioD  into 
the  United  States  if  they  entertain  cerUin  unpopular  opinions.] 


46  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

■  to  be  fallible,  few  think  it  necessary  to  take  any  precautions  against  their 
own  fallibihty,  or  admit  the  supposition  that  any  opinion,  of  which  they 
feel  very  certain,  may  be  one  of  the  examples  of  the  error  to  which  they 
acknowledge  themselves  to  be  liable.  Absolute  princes,  or  others  who 
are  accustomed  to  unhmited  deference,  usually  feel  this  complete  confi- 
dence in  their  own  opinions  on  nearly  all  subjects.  People  more  happily 
situated,  who  sometimes  hear  their  opinions  disputed,  and  are  not  wholly 
unused  to  be  set  right  when  they  are  wrong,  place  the  same  unbounded 
reliance  only  on  such  of  their  opinions  as  are  shared  by  all  who  surround 
them,  or  to  whom  they  habitually  defer;  for  in  proportion  to  a  man's 
want  of  confidence  in  his  own  solitary  judgment,  does  he  usually  repose 
with  implicit  trust  on  the  infalhbiUty  of  "  the  world  "  in  general.  And 
the  world,  to  each  individual,  means  the  part  of  it  with  which  he  comes 
in  contact — ^his  party,  his  sect,  his  church,  his  class  of  society;  the  man 
may  be  called,  by  comparison,  almost  liberal  and  large  minded  to  whom 
it  means  anything  so  comprehensive  as  his  own  country  or  his  own  age. 
Nor  is  his  faith  in  this  collective  authority  at  all  shaken  by  his  being 
aware  that  other  ages,  countries,  sects,  churches,  classes,  and  parties 
have  thought,  and  even  now  think,  the  exact  reverse.  He  devolves  upon 
his  own  world  the  responsibility  of  being  in  the  right  against  the  dissen- 
tient worlds  of  other  people;  and  it  never  troubles  him  that  mere  acci- 
dent has  decided  which  of  these  numerous  worlds  is  the  object  of  his 
reliance,  and  that  the  same  causes  which  make  him  a  Churchman  in 
London,  would  have  made  him  a  Buddhist  or  a  Confucian  in  Pekin. 
Yet  it  is  as  evident  in  itself,  as  any  amount  of  argument  can  make  it, 
that  ages  are  no  more  infallible  than  individuals ;  every  age  having  held 
many  opinions  which  subsequent  ages  have  deemed  not  only  false  but 
absurd;  and  it  is  as  certain  that  many  opinions,  now  general,  will  be 
rejected  by  future  ages,  as  it  is  that  many,  once  general,  are  rejected  by 
the  present. 

The  objection  likely  to  be  made  to  this  argument,  would  probably  take 
some  such  form  as  the  following:  There  is  no  greater  assumption  of 
infallibility  in  forbidding  the  propagation  of  error  than  in  any  other 
thing  which  is  done  by  public  authority  on  its  own  judgment  and  re- 
sponsibility. Judgment  is  given  to  men  that  they  may  use  it.  Because 
it  may  be  used  erroneously,  are  men  to  be  told  that  they  ought  not  to 
use  it  at  all  ?  To  prohibit  what  they  think  pernicious,  is  not  claiming 
exemption  from  error,  but  fulfilUng  the  duty  incumbent  on  them,  al- 
though fallible,  of  acting  on  their  conscientious  conviction.  If  we  were 
never  to  act  on  our  opinions,  because  those  opinions  may  be  wrong,  we 
should  leave  all  our  interests  uncared  for,  and  all  our  duties  unperformed. 
An  objection  which  applies  to  all  conduct,  can  be  no  valid  objection  to 
any  conduct  in  particular.  It  is  the  duty  of  governments,  and  of  in- 
dividuals, to  form  the  truest  opinions  they  can ;  to  form  them  carefully, 


JOHN    STUART    MILL  47 

and  never  impose  them  upon  others  unless  they  are  quite  sure  of  being  ' 
right.  But  when  they  are  sure  (such  reasoners  may  say),  it  is  not  con- 
scientiousness but  cowardice  to  shrink  from  acting  on  their  opinions, 
and  allow  doctrines  which  they  honestly  think  dangerous  to  the  welfare 
of  mankind,  either  in  this  Kfe  or  in  another,  to  be  scattered  abroad  with- 
out restraint,  because  other  people,  in  less  enlightened  times,  have  per- 
secuted opinions  now  beheved  to  be  true.  Let  us  take  care,  it  may  be 
said,  not  to  make  the  same  mistake ;  but  governments  and  nations  have 
made  mistakes  in  other  things  which  are  not  denied  to  be  fit  subjects 
for  the  exercise  of  authority;  they  have  laid  on  bad  taxes,  made  unjust 
wars.  Ought  we  therefore  to  lay  on  no  taxes,  and,  under  whatever 
provocation,  make  no  wars  ?  Men,  and  governments,  must  act  to  the 
best  of  their  ability.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  absolute  certainty,  but 
there  is  assurance  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  human  Ufe.  We  may, 
and  must,  assume  our  opinion  to  be  true  for  the  guidance  of  our  own 
conduct ;  and  it  is  assuming  no  more  when  we  forbid  bad  men  to  pervert 
society  by  the  propagation  of  opinions  which  we  regard  as  false  and  per- 
nicious. 

I  answer,  that  it  is  assuming  very  much  more.  There  is  the  greatest 
difference  between  presuming  an  opinion  to  be  true,  because,  with  every 
opportunity  for  contesting  it,  it  has  not  been  refuted,  and  assuming  its 
truth  for  the  purpose  of  not  permitting  its  refutation.  Complete  Uberly 
of  contradicting  and  disproving  our  opinion  is  the  very  condition  which 
justifies  us  in  assuming  its  truth  for  purposes  of  action ;  and  on  no  other 
terms  can  a  being  with  human  faculties  have  any  rational  assurance  of 
being  right. 

When  we  consider  either  the  history  of  opinion,  or  the  ordinary  con- 
duct of  human  life,  to  what  is  it  to  be  ascribed  that  the  one  and  the  other 
are  no  worse  than  they  are  ?  Not,  certainly,  to  the  inherent  force  of  the 
human  understanding;  for,  on  any  matter  not  self-evident,  there  are 
ninety-nine  persons  totally  incapable  of  judging  of  it,  for  one  who  is 
capable ;  and  the  capacity  of  the  hundredth  person  is  only  comparative ; 
for  the  majority  of  the  eminent  men  of  every  past  generation  held  many 
opinions  now  known  to  be  erroneous,  and  did  or  approved  numerous 
things  which  no  one  will  now  justify.  Why  is  it,  then,  that  there  is  on 
the  whole  a  preponderance  among  mankind  of  rational  opinions  and 
rational  conduct  ?  If  there  really  is  this  preponderance — ^which  there 
must  be  unless  human  affairs  are,  and  have  always  been,  in  an  almost 
desperate  state — it  is  owing  to  a  quahty  of  the  human  mind,  the  source 
of  everything  respectable  in  man  either  as  an  intellectual  or  as  a  moral 
being,  namely,  that  his  errors  are  corrigible.  He  is  capable  of  rectifying 
his  mistakes,  by  discussion  and  experience.  Not  by  experience  alone. 
There  must  be  discussion,  to  show  how  experience  is  to  be  interpreted. 
Wrong  opinions  and  practices  gradually  yield  to  fact  and  argument; 


4»  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

but  facts  and  arguments,  to  produce  any  eflPect  on  the  mind,  must  be 
brought  before  it.  Very  few  facts  are  able  to  tell  their  own  story,  with- 
out comments  to  bring  out  their  meaning.  The  whole  strength  and 
value,  then,  of  human  judgment,  depending  on  the  one  property,  that  it 
can  be  set  right  when  it  is  wrong,  reliance  can  be  placed  on  it  only  when 
the  means  of  setting  it  right  are  kept  constantly  at  hand.  In  the  case 
of  any  person  whose  judgment  is  really  deserving  of  confidence,  how 
has  it  become  so?  Because  he  has  kept  his  mind  open  to  criticism  of 
his  opinions  and  conduct.  Because  it  has  been  his  practice  to  listen  to 
all  that  could  be  said  against  him ;  to  profit  by  as  much  of  it  as  was  just, 
and  expound  to  himself,  and  upon  occasion  to  others,  the  fallacy  of  what 
was  fallacious.  Because  he  has  felt  that  the  only  way  in  which  a  human 
being  can  make  some  approach  to  knowing  the  whole  of  a  subject,  is 
by  hearing  what  can  be  said  about  it  by  persons  of  every  variety  of  opin- 
ion, and  studying  all  modes  in  which  it  can  be  looked  at  by  every  char- 
acter of  mind.  No  wise  man  ever  acquired  his  wisdom  in  any  mode 
but  this ;  nor  is  it  in  the  nature  of  human  intellect  to  become  wise  in  any 
other  manner.  The  steady  habit  of  correcting  and  completing  his  own 
opinion  by  collating  it  with  those  of  others,  so  far  from  causing  doubt 
and  hesitation  in  carrying  it  into  practice,  is  the  only  stable  foundation 
for  a  just  reUance  on  it;  for,  being  cognizant  of  all  that  can,  at  least  ob- 
viously, be  said  against  him,  and  having  taken  up  his  position  against 
all  gainsayers — knowing  that  he  has  sought  for  objections  and  difficulties, 
instead  of  avoiding  them,  and  has  shut  out  no  Ught  which  can  be  thrown 
upon  the  subject  from  any  quarter — ^he  has  a  right  to  think  his  judgment 
better  than  that  of  any  person,  and  any  multitude,  who  have  not  gone 
through  a  similar  process. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  require  that  what  the  wisest  of  mankind,  those 
who  are  best  entitled  to  trust  their  own  judgment,  find  necessary  to 
warrant  their  relying  on  it,  should  be  submitted  to  by  that  miscellaneous 
collection  of  a  few  wise  and  many  foolish  individuals  called  the  pubUc. 
The  most  intolerant  of  churches,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  even 
at  the  canonization  of  a  saint,  admits,  and  Ustens  patiently  to,  a  "  devil's 
advocate."  The  hoUest  of  men,  it  appears,  cannot  be  admitted  to  post- 
humous honors,  until  all  that  the  devil  could  say  against  him  is  known 
and  weighed.  If  even  the  Newtonian  philosophy  were  not  permitted 
to  be  questioned,  mankind  could  not  feel  as  complete  assurance  of  its 
truth  as  they  now  do.  The  beliefs  which  we  have  most  warrant  for, 
have  no  safeguard  to  rest  on  but  a  standing  invitation  to  the  whole 
world  to  prove  them  unfounded.  If  the  challenge  is  not  accepted,  or 
is  accepted  and  the  attempt  fails,  we  are  far  enough  from  certainty  still; 
but  we  have  done  the  best  that  the  existing  state  of  human  reason  ad- 
mits of;  we  have  neglected  nothing  that  could  give  the  truth  a  chance 
of  reaching  us ;  if  the  lists  are  kept  open,  we  may  hope  that  if  there  be 


JOHN   STUART   MILL  49 

a  better  truth,  it  will  be  found  when  the  human  mind  is  capable  of  re- 
ceiving it;  and  in  the  mean  time  we  may  rely  on  having  attained  such 
approach  to  truth  as  is  possible  in  our  own  day.  This  is  the  amount  of 
certainty  attainable  by  a  fallible  being,  and  this  the  sole  way  of  attaining  it. 

Strange  it  is,  that  men  should  admit  the  validity  of  the  arguments  for 
free  discussion,  but  object  to  their  being  "  pushed  to  an  extreme  " ;  not 
seeing  that  unless  the  reasons  are  good  for  an  extreme  case,  they  are  not 
good  for  any  case.  Strange  that  they  should  imagine  that  they  are  not 
assuming  infallibility,  when  they  acknowledge  that  there  should  be  free 
discussion  on  all  subjects  which  can  possibly  be  doubtful,  but  think  that 
some  particular  principle  or  doctrine  should  be  forbidden  to  be  ques- 
tioned because  it  is  so  certain;  that  is,  because  <^2/ are  certain  that  it  is 
certain.  To  call  any  proposition  certain,  while  there  is  any  one  who 
would  deny  its  certainty  if  permitted,  but  who  is  not  permitted,  is  to 
assume  that  we  ourselves,  and  those  who  agree  with  us,  are  the  judges 
of  certainty,  and  judges  without  hearing  the  other  side. 

In  the  present  age — which  has  been  described  as  "destitute  of  faith, 
but  terrified  at  scepticism" — in  which  people  feel  sure,  not  so  much 
that  their  opinions  are  true,  as  that  they  should  not  know  what  to  do 
without  them — the  claims  of  an  opinion  to  be  protected  from  public 
attack  are  rested  not  so  much  on  its  truth  as  on  its  importance  to  society. 
There  are,  it  is  alleged,  certain  beUefs,  so  useful,  not  to  say  indispensable 
to  well-being,  that  it  is  as  much  the  duty  of  governments  to  uphold  those 
beliefs  as  to  protect  any  other  of  the  interests  of  society.  In  a  case  of 
such  necessity,  and  so  directly  in  the  line  of  their  duty,  something  less 
than  infallibility  may,  it  is  maintained,  warrant,  and  even  bind,  govern- 
ments to  act  on  their  own  opinion,  confirmed  by  the  general  opinion  of 
mankind.  It  is  also  often  argued,  and  still  oftener  thought,  that  none 
but  bad  men  would  desire  to  weaken  these  salutary  beliefs;  and  there 
can  be  nothing  wrong,  it  is  thought,  in  restraining  bad  men,  and  prohib- 
iting what  only  such  men  would  wisn  to  practise.  This  mode  of  think- 
ing makes  the  justification  of  restraints  on  discussion  not  a  question  of 
the  truth  of  doctrines,  but  of  their  usefulness ;  and  flatters  itself  by  that 
means  to  escape  the  responsibility  of  claiming  to  be  an  infallible  judge 
of  opinions.  But  those  who  thus  satisfy  themselves,  do  not  perceive  that 
the  assumption  of  infallibility  is  merely  shifted  from  one  point  to  another. 
The  usefulness  of  an  opinion  is  itself  matter  of  opinion;  as  disputable, 
as  open  to  discussion,  and  requiring  discussion  as  much,  as  the  opinion 
itself.  There  is  the  same  need  of  an  infallible  judge  of  opinions  to  de- 
cide an  opinion  to  be  noxious,  as  to  decide  it  to  be  false,  unless  the  opinion 
condemned  has  full  opportunity  of  defending  itself.  And  it  will  not  do 
to  say  that  the  heretic  may  be  allowed  to  maintain  the  utility  or  harm- 
lessness  of  his  opinion,  though  forbidden  to  maintain  its  truth.  The 
truth  of  an  opinion  is  part  of  its  utility.     If  we  would  know  whether  or 


50  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

not  it  is  desirable  that  a  proposition  should  be  believed,  is  it  possible  to 
exclude  the  consideration  of  whether  or  not  it  is  true  ?  In  the  opinion, 
not  of  bad  men,  but  of  the  best  men,  no  beUef  which  is  contrary  to  truth 
can  be  really  useful;  and  can  you  prevent  such  men  from  urging  that 
plea,  when  they  are  charged  with  culpability  for  denying  some  doctrine 
which  they  are  told  is  useful,  but  which  they  beUeve  to  be  false  ?  Those 
who  are  on  the  side  of  received  opinions,  never  fail  to  take  all  possible 
advantage  of  this  plea;  you  do  not  find  them  handUng  the  question  of 
utility  as  if  it  could  be  completely  abstraqjLed  from  that  of  truth — on  the 
contrary,  it  is,  above  all,  because  their  doctrine  is  "the  truth,"  that  the 
knowledge  or  the  belief  of  it  is  held  to  be  so  indispensable.  There  can 
be  no  fair  discussion  of  the  question  of  usefulness,  when  an  argument  so 
vital  may  be  employed  on  one  side,  but  not  on  the  other.  And  in  point 
of  fact,  when  law  and  pubUc  feehng  do  not  permit  the  truth  of  an  opinion 
to  be  disputed,  they  are  just  as  httle  tolerant  of  a  denial  of  its  usefulness. 
The  utmost  they  allow  is  an  extenuation  of  its  absolute  necessity,  or  of 
the  positive  guilt  of  rejecting  it. 

In  order  more  fully  to  illustrate  the  mischief  of  denying  a  hearing  to 
opinions  because  we,  in  our  own  judgment,  have  condemned  them,  it  will 
be  desirable  to  fix  down  the  discussion  to  a  concrete  case ;  and  I  choose, 
by  preference,  the  cases  which  are  least  favorable  to  me — ^in  which  the 
argument  against  freedom  of  opinion,  both  on  the  score  of  truth  and  on 
that  of  utility,  is  considered  the  strongest.  Let  the  opinions  impugned 
be  the  belief  in  a  God  and  in  a  future  state,  or  any  of  the  commonly 
received  doctrines  of  morality.  To  fight  the  battle  on  such  ground, 
gives  a  great  advantage  to  an  unfair  antagonist;  since  he  will  be  sure 
to  say  (and  many  who  have  no  desire  to  be  unfair  will  say  it  internally), 
Are  these  the  doctrines  which  you  do  not  deem  sufiiciently  certain  to  be 
taken  under  the  protection  of  law  ?  Is  the  belief  in  a  God  one  of  the 
opinions,  to  feel  sure  of  which  you  hold  to  be  assuming  infallibility? 
But  I  must  be  permitted  to  observe,  that  it  is  not  the  feeling  sure  of  a 
doctrine  (be  it  what  it  may)  which  I  call  an  assumption  of  infallibility. 
It  is  the  undertaking  to  decide  that  question  for  others,  without  allowing 
them  to  hear  what  can  be  said  on  the  contrary  side.  And  I  denounce 
and  reprobate  this  pretension  not  the  less,  if  put  forth  on  the  side  of  my 
most  solemn  convictions.  However  positive  any  one's  persuasion  may 
be,  not  only  of  the  falsity  but  of  the  pernicious  consequences — not  only 
of  the  pernicious  consequences,  but  (to  adopt  expressions  which  I  alto- 
gether condemn)  the  immorality  and  impiety  of  an  opinion;  yet  if,  in 
pursuance  of  that  private  judgment,  though  backed  by  the  public  judg- 
ment of  his  country  or  his  contemporaries,  he  prevents  the  opinion  from 
being  heard  in  its  defence,  he  assumes  infallibility.  And  so  far  from  the 
assumption  being  less  objectionable  or  less  dangerous  because  the  opinion 
is  called  immoral  or  impious,  this  is  the  case  of  all  others  in  which  it  is 


JOHN    STUART    MILL  51 

most  fatal.  These  are  exactly  the  occasions  on  which  the  men  of  one 
generation  commit  those  dreadful  mistakes,  which  excite  the  astonish- 
ment and  horror  of  posterity.  It  is  among  such  that  we  find  the  in- 
stances memorable  in  history,  when  the  arm  of  the  law  has  been  employed 
to  root  out  the  best  men  and  the  noblest  doctrines ;  with  deplorable  suc- 
cess as  to  the  men,  though  some  of  the  doctrines  have  survived  to  be  (as 
if  in  mockery),  invoked  in  defence  of  similar  conduct  towards  those  who 
dissent  from  them,  or  from  their  received  interpretation. 

Mankind  can  hardly  be  too  often  reminded,  that  there  was  once  a 
man  named  Socrates,  between  whom  and  the  legal  authorities  and  public 
opinion  of  his  time,  there  took  place  a  memorable  collision.  Born  in 
an  age  and  country  abounding  in  individual  greatness,  this  man  has  been 
handed  down  to  us  by  those  who  best  knew  both  him  and  the  age,  as  the 
most  virtuous  man  in  it;  while  we  know  him  as  the  head  and  prototype 
of  all  subsequent  teachers  of  virtue,  the  source  equally  of  the  lofty  in- 
spiration of  Plato  and  the  judicious  utilitarianism  of  Aristotle,'  H  maestri 
di  color  che  sanno"  the  two  headsprings  of  ethical  as  of  all  other  philoso- 
phy. This  acknowledged  master  of  all  the  eminent  thinkers  who  have 
since  lived — ^whose  fame,  still  growing  after  more  than  two  thousand 
years,  all  but  outweighs  the  whole  remainder  of  the  names  which  make 
his  native  city  illustrious — ^was  put  to  death  by  his  countrymen,  after  a 
judicial  conviction,  for  impiety  and  immorality.  Impiety,  in  denying 
the  gods  recognized  by  the  State;  indeed  his  accuser  asserted  (see  the 
"Apologia")  that  he  believed  in  no  gods  at  all.  Immorality,  in  being, 
by  his  doctrines  and  instructions,  a  "corrupter  of  youth."  Of  these 
charges  the  tribunal,  there  is  every  ground  for  believing,  honestly  found 
him  guilty,  and  condemned  the  man  who  probably  of  all  then  bom  had 
deserved  best  of  mankind,  to  be  put  to  death  as  a  criminal. 

To  pass  from  this  to  the  only  other  instance  of  judicial  iniquity,  the 
mention  of  which,  after  the  condemnation  of  Socrates,  would  not  be  an 
anti-climax — the  event  which  took  place  on  Calvary  rather  more  than 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago.  The  man  who  left  on  the  memory  of  those 
who  witnessed  his  life  and  conversation,  such  an  impression  of  his  moral 
grandeur,  that  eighteen  subsequent  centuries  have  done  homage  to  him 
as  the  Almighty  in  person,  was  ignominiously  put  to  death,  as  what? 
As  a  blasphemer.  Men  did  not  merely  mistake  their  benefactor;  they 
mistook  him  for  the  exact  contrary  of  what  he  was,  and  treated  him  as 
that  prodigy  of  impiety,  which  they  themselves  are  now  held  to  be,  for 
their  treatment  of  him.  The  feelings  with  which  mankind  now  regard 
these  lamentable  transactions,  especially  the  later  of  the  two,  render 
them  extremely  unjust  in  their  judgment  of  the  unhappy  actors.  These 
were,  to  all  appearance,  not  bad  men — not  worse  than  men  commonly 
are,  but  rather  the  contrary;  men  who  possessed  in  a  full,  or  somewhat 
more  than  a  full  measure,  the  religious,  moral,  and  patriotic  feelings  of 


6«  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

their  time  and  people;  the  very  kind  of  men  who,  in  all  times,  our  own 
included,  have  every  chance  of  passing  through  life  blameless  and  re- 
spected. The  high-priest  who  rent  his  garments  when  the  words  were 
pronounced,  which,  according  to  all  the  ideas  of  his  country,  constituted 
the  blackest  guilt,  was  in  all  probability  quite  as  sincere  in  his  horror 
and  indignation,  as  the  generality  of  respectable  and  pious  men  now 
are  in  the  religious  and  moral  sentiments  they  profess ;  and  most  of  those 
who  now  shudder  at  his  conduct,  if  they  had  lived  in  his  time,  and  been 
bom  Jews,  would  have  acted  precisely  as  he  did.  Orthodox  Christians 
who  are  tempted  to  think  that  those  who  stoned  to  death  the  first  martyrs 
must  have  been  worse  men  than  they  themselves  are,  ought  to  remember 
that  one  of  those  persecutors  was  Saint  Paul. 

Let  us  add  one  more  example,  the  most  striking  of  all,  if  the  impres- 
siveness  of  an  error  is  measured  by  the  wisdom  and  virtue  of  him  who 
falls  into  it.  If  ever  any  one,  possessed  of  power,  had  grounds  for  think- 
ing himself  the  best  and  most  enlightened  among  his  contemporaries, 
it  was  the  Emperor  Marcus  Aurelius.  Absolute  monarch  of  the  whole 
civilized  worid,  he  preserved  through  life  not  only  the  most  unblemished 
justice,  but  what  was  less  to  be  expected  from  his  Stoical  breeding,  the 
tenderest  heart.  The  few  failings  which  are  attributed  to  him,  were  all 
on  the  side  of  indulgence;  while  his  writings,  the  highest  ethical  product 
of  the  ancient  mind,  differ  scarcely  perceptibly,  if  they  differ  at  all,  from 
the  most  characteristic  teachings  of  Christ,  This  man,  a  better  Chris- 
tian in  all  but  the  dogmatic  sense  of  the  word,  than  almost  any  of  the 
ostensibly  Christian  sovereigns  who  have  since  reigned,  persecuted 
Christianity.  Placed  at  the  summit  of  all  the  previous  attainments  of 
humanity,  with  an  open,  unfettered  intellect,  and  a  character  which  led 
him  of  himself  to  embody  in  his  moral  writings  the  Christian  ideal,  he 
yet  failed  to  see  that  Christianity  was  to  be  a  good  and  not  an  evil  to  the 
world,  with  his  duties  to  which  he  was  so  deeply  penetrated.  Existing 
society  he  knew  to  be  in  a  deplorable  state.  But  such  as  it  was,  he  saw, 
or  thought  he  saw,  that  it  was  held  together,  and  prevented  from  being 
worse,  by  belief  and  reverence  of  the  received  divinities.  As  a  ruler  of 
mankind,  he  deemed  it  his  duty  not  to  suffer  society  to  fall  in  pieces; 
and  saw  not  how,  if  its  existing  ties  were  removed,  any  others  could  be 
formed  which  could  again  knit  it  together.  The  new  religion  openly 
aimed  at  dissolving  these  ties ;  unless,  therefore,  it  was  his  duty  to  adopt 
that  religion,  it  seemed  to  be  his  duty  to  put  it  down.  Inasmuch  then 
as  the  theology  of  Christianity  did  not  appear  to  him  true  or  of  divine 
origin;  inasmuch  as  this  strange  history  of  a  crucified  God  was  not 
credible  to  him,  and  a  system  which  purported  to  rest  entirely  upon  a 
foundation  to  him  so  wholly  unbelievable  could  not  be  foreseen  by  him 
to  be  that  renovating  agency  which,  after  all  abatements,  it  has  in  fact 
proved  to  be — the  gentlest  and  most  amiable  of  philosophers  and  rulers. 


JOHN   STUART   MILL  58 

under  a  solemn  sense  of  duty,  authorized  the  persecution  of  Christianity. 
To  my  mind,  this  is  one  of  the  most  tragical  facts  in  all  history.  It  is  a 
bitter  thought,  how  different  a  thing  the  Christianity  of  the  worid  might 
have  been,  if  the  Christian  faith  had  been  adopted  as  the  religion  of  the 
empire  under  the  auspices  of  Marcus  Aurelius  instead  of  those  of  Con- 
stantine.  But  it  would  be  equally  unjust  to  him  and  false  to  truth,  to 
deny,  that  no  one  plea  which  can  be  urged  for  punishing  anti-Christian 
teaching,  was  wanting  to  Marcus  Aurelius  for  punishing,  as  he  did,  the 
propagation  of  Christianity.  No  Christian  more  firmly  believes  that 
Atheism  is  false,  and  tends  to  the  dissolution  of  society,  than  Marcus 
Aurelius  believed  the  same  things  of  Christianity;  he  who,  of  all  men 
then  living,  might  have  been  thought  the  most  capable  of  appreciating 
it.  Unless  any  one  who  approves  of  punishment  for  the  promulgation 
of  opinions,  flatters  himself  that  he  is  a  wiser  and  better  man  than  Marcus 
Aurelius — more  deeply  versed  in  the  wisdom  of  his  time,  more  elevated 
in  his  intellect  above  it — more  earnest  in  his  search  for  truth,  or  more 
single-minded  in  his  devotion  to  it  when  found,  let  him  abstain  from 
that  assumption  of  the  joint  infallibility  of  himself  and  the  multitude, 
which  the  great  Antoninus  made  with  so  unfortunate  a  result.     '4:|       ■! 

Aware  of  the  impossibility  of  defending  the  use  of  punishment  for 
restraining  irreligious  opinions,  by  any  argument  which  will  not  justify 
Marcus  Antoninus,  the  enemies  of  religious  freedom,  when  hard  pressed, 
occasionally  accept  this  consequence,  and  say,  with  Dr.  Johnson,  that 
the  persecutors  of  Christianity  were  in  the  right;  that  persecution  is  an 
ordeal  through  which  truth  ought  to  pass,  and  always  passes  success- 
fully, legal  penalties  being,  in  the  end,  powerless  against  truth,  though 
sometimes  beneficially  effective  against  mischievous  errors.  This  is  a 
form  of  the  argument  for  religious  intolerance,  suflSciently  remarkable 
not  to  be  passed  without  notice. 

A  theory  which  maintains  that  truth  may  justifiably  be  persecuted 
because  persecution  cannot  possibly  do  it  any  harm,  cannot  be  charged 
with  being  intentionally  hostile  to  the  reception  of  new  truths;  but  we 
cannot  commend  the  generosity  of  its  dealing  with  the  persons  to  whom 
mankind  are  indebted  for  them.  To  discover  to  the  world  something 
which  deeply  concerns  it,  and  of  which  it  was  previously  ignorant;  to 
prove  to  it  that  it  had  been  mistaken  on  some  vital  point  of  temporal  or 
spiritual  interest,  is  as  important  a  service  as  a  human  being  can  render 
to  his  fellow-creatures,  and  in  certain  cases,  as  in  those  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians and  of  the  Reformers,  those  who  think  with  Dr.  Johnson  believe 
it  to  have  been  the  most  precious  gift  which  could  be  bestowed  on  man- 
kind. That  the  authors  of  such  splendid  benefits  should  be  requited 
by  martyrdom;  that  their  reward  should  be  to  be  dealt  with  as  the  vilest 
of  criminals,  is  not,  upon  this  theory,  a  deplorable  error  and  misfortune, 
for  which  humanity  should  mourn  in  sackcloth  and  ashes,  but  the  nor- 


54  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

mal  and  justilBable  state  of  things.  The  propounder  of  a  new  truth, 
according  to  this  doctrine,  should  stand,  as  stood,  in  the  legislation  of 
the  Locrians,  the  proposer  of  a  new  law,  with  a  halter  round  his  neck, 
to  be  instantly  tightened  if  the  public  assembly  did  not,  on  hearing  his 
reasons,  then  and  there  adopt  his  proposition.  People  who  defend  this 
mode  of  treating  benefactors  cannot  be  supposed  to  set  much  value  on 
the  benefit;  and  I  believe  this  view  of  the  subject  is  mostly  confined  to 
the  sort  of  persons  who  think  that  new  truths  may  have  been  desirable 
once,  but  that  we  have  had  enough  of  them  now. 

But,  indeed,  the  dictum  that  truth  always  triumphs  over  persecution, 
is  one  of  those  pleasant  falsehoods  which  men  repeat  after  one  another 
till  they  pass  into  commonplaces,  but  which  all  experience  refutes. 
History  teems  with  instances  of  truth  put  down  by  persecution.  If  not 
suppressed  forever,  it  may  be  thrown  back  for  centuries.  To  speak 
only  of  reUgious  opinions:  The  Reformation  broke  out  at  least  twenty 
times  before  Luther,  and  was  put  down.  Arnold  of  Brescia  was  put 
down.  Fra  Dolcino  was  put  down.  Savonarola  was  put  down.  The 
Albigeois  were  put  down.  The  Vaudois  were  put  down.  The  Lollards 
were  put  down.  The  Hussites  were  put  down.  Even  after  the  era  of 
Luther,  wherever  persecution  was  persisted  in,  it  was  successful.  In 
Spain,  Italy,  Flanders,  the  Austrian  empire.  Protestantism  was  rooted 
out ;  and,  most  likely,  would  have  been  so  in  England,  had  Queen  Mary 
lived,  or  Queen  Elizabeth  died.  Persecution  has  always  succeeded, 
save  where  the  heretics  were  too  strong  a  party  to  be  effectually  perse- 
cuted. No  reasonable  person  can  doubt  that  Christianity  might  have 
been  extirpated  in  the  Roman  Empire.  It  spread,  and  became  pre- 
dominant, because  the  persecutions  were  only  occasional,  lasting  but 
a  short  time,  and  separated  by  long  intervals  of  almost  undisturbed 
propagandism.  It  is  a  piece  of  idle  sentimentality  that  truth,  merely 
as  truth,  has  any  inherent  power  denied  to  error,  of  prevailing  against 
the  dungeon  and  the  stake.  Men  are  not  more  zealous  for  truth  than 
they  often  are  for  error,  and  a  sufficient  application  of  legal  or  even  of 
social  penalties  will  generally  succeed  in  stopping  the  propagation  of 
either.  The  real  advantage  which  truth  has  consists  in  this,  that  when 
an  opinion  is  true,  it  may  be  extinguished  once,  twice,  or  many  times, 
but  in  the  course  of  ages  there  will  generally  be  found  persons  to  redis- 
cover it,  until  some  one  of  its  reappearances  falls  on  a  time  when  from 
favorable  circumstances  it  escapes  persecution  until  it  has  made  such 
head  as  to  withstand  all  subsequent  attempts  to  suppress  it. 

It  will  be  said,  that  we  do  not  now  put  to  death  the  introducers  of  new 
opinions — we  are  not  like  our  fathers  who  slew  the  prophets ;  we  even 
build  sepulchres  to  them.  It  is  true  we  no  longer  put  heretics  to  death ; 
and  the  amount  of  penal  infliction  which  modem  feeling  probably  would 
tolerate,  even  against  the  most  obnoxious  opinions,  is  not  sufficient  to 


JOHN    STUART    MILL  55 

extirpate  them.  But  let  us  not  flatter  ourselves  that  we  are  yet  free 
from  the  stain  even  of  legal  persecution.  Penalties  for  opinion,  or  at 
least  for  its  expression,  still  exist  by  law;  and  their  enforcement  is  not, 
even  in  these  times,  so  unexampled  as  to  make  it  at  all  incredible  that 
they  may  some  day  be  revived  in  full  force.  In  the  year  1857,  at  the 
summer  assizes  of  the  county  of  Cornwall,  an  unfortunate  man  said  to 
be  of  unexceptionable  conduct  in  all  relations  of  life,  was  sentenced  to 
twenty-one  months'  imprisonment  for  uttering,  and  writing  on  a  gate, 
some  oflFensive  words  concerning  Christianity.  Within  a  month  of  the 
same  time,  at  the  Old  Bailey,  two  persons,  on  two  separate  occasions, 
were  rejected  as  jurymen,  and  one  of  them  grossly  insulted  by  the  judge 
and  by  one  of  the  counsel,  because  they  honestly  declared  that  they  had 
no  theological  belief;  and  a  third,  a  foreigner,  for  the  same  reason,  was 
denied  justice  against  a  thief.  This  refusal  of  redress  took  place  in 
virtue  of  the  legal  doctrine  that  no  person  can  be  allowed  to  give  evi- 
dence in  a  court  of  justice,  who  does  not  profess  belief  in  a  God  (any 
god  is  suflBcient)  and  in  a  future  state;  which  is  equivalent  to  declaring 
such  persons  to  be  outlaws,  excluded  from  the  protection  of  the  tribunals ; 
who  may  not  only  be  robbed  or  assaulted  with  impunity,  if  no  one  but 
themselves,  or  persons  of  similar  opinions,  be  present,  but  any  one  else 
may  be  robbed  or  assaulted  with  impunity  if  the  proof  of  the  fact  de- 
pends on  their  evidence.  The  assumption  on  which  this  is  grounded,  is 
that  the  oath  is  worthless  of  a  person  who  does  not  believe  in  a  future 
state ;  a  proposition  which  betokens  much  ignorance  of  history  in  those 
who  assent  to  it  (since  it  is  historically  true  that  a  large  proportion  of 
infidels  in  all  ages  have  been  persons  of  distinguished  integrity  and  hon- 
or) ;  and  would  be  maintained  by  no  one  who  had  the  smallest  concep- 
tion how  many  of  the  persons  in  greatest  repute  with  the  world,  both  for 
virtues  and  attainments,  are  well  knovm,  at  least  to  theirintimates,  tobe 
unbelievers.  The  rule,  besides,  is  suicidal,  and  cuts  away  its  own 
foundation.  Under  pretence  that  atheists  must  be  liars,  it  admits  the 
testimony  of  all  atheists  who  are  willing  to  lie,  and  rejects  only  those 
who  brave  the  obloquy  of  pubUcly  confessing  a  detested  creed  rather 
than  affirm  a  falsehood.  A  rule  thus  self-convicted  of  absurdity  so  far 
as  regards  its  professed  purpose,  can  be  kept  in  force  only  as  a  badge  of 
hatred,  a  relic  of  persecution;  a  persecution,  too,  having  the  peculiarity 
that  the  qualification  for  undergoing  it  is  the  being  clearly  proved  not 
to  deserve  it.  The  rule,  and  the  theory  it  implies,  are  hardly  less  in- 
sulting to  believers  than  to  infidels.  For  if  he  who  does  not  believe  in 
a  future  state  necessarily  lies,  it  follows  that  they  who  do  believe  are  pre- 
vented from  lying,  if  prevented  they  are,  only  by  the  fear  of  hell.  We  will 
not  do  the  authors  and  abettors  of  the  rule  the  injury  of  supposing  that 
the  conception  which  they  have  formed  of  Christian  virtue  is  drawn 
from  their  own  consciousness. 


56  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

These,  indeed,  are  but  rags  and  remnants  of  persecution,  and  may  be 
thought  to  be  not  so  much  an  indication  of  the  wish  to  persecute,  as  an 
example  of  that  very  frequent  infirmity  of  EngUsh  minds,  which  makes 
them  take  a  preposterous  pleasure  in  the  assertion  of  a  bad  principle, 
when  they  are  no  longer  bad  enough  to  desire  to  carry  it  really  into  prac- 
tice. But,  unhappily,  there  is  no  security  in  the  state  of  the  public  mind 
that  the  suspension  of  worse  forms  of  legal  persecution,  which  has  lasted 
for  about  the  space  of  a  generation,  will  continue.  In  this  age  the  quiet 
surface  of  routine  is  as  often  ruffled  by  attempts  to  resuscitate  past  evils, 
as  to  introduce  new  benefits.  What  is  boasted  of  at  the  present  time 
as  the  revival  of  religion,  is  always,  in  narrow  and  uncultivated  minds, 
at  least  as  much  the  revival  of  bigotry;  and  where  there  is  the  strong 
permanent  leaven  of  intolerance  in  the  feehngs  of  a  people,  which  at  all 
times  abides  in  the  middle  classes  of  this  country,  it  needs  but  Httle  to 
provoke  them  into  actively  persecuting  those  whom  they  have  never 
ceased  to  think  proper  objects  of  persecution.  For  it  is  this — ^it  is  the 
opinions  men  entertain,  and  the  feehngs  they  cherish,  respecting  those 
who  disown  the  beliefs  they  deem  important,  which  makes  this  country 
not  a  place  of  mental  freedom.  For  a  long  time  past,  the  chief  mischief 
of  the  legal  penalties  is  that  they  strengthen  the  social  stigma.  It  is 
that  stigma  which  is  really  elfective,  and  so  effective  is  it,  that  the  pro- 
fession of  opinions  which  are  under  the  ban  of  society  is  much  less  com- 
mon in  England,  than  is,  in  many  other  countries,  the  avowal  of  those 
which  incur  risk  of  judicial  punishment.  In  respect  to  all  persons  but 
those  whose  pecuniary  circumstances  make  them  independent  of  the 
good  will  of  other  people,  opinion,  on  this  subject,  is  as  efficacious  as 
law;  men  might  as  well  be  imprisoned,  as  excluded  from  the  means  of 
earning  their  bread.  Those  whose  bread  is  already  secured,  and  who 
desire  no  favors  from  men  in  power,  or  from  bodies  of  men,  or  from  the 
public,  have  nothing  to  fear  from  the  open  avowal  of  any  opinions,  but 
to  be  ill-thought  of  and  ill-spoken  of,  and  this  it  ought  not  to  require  a 
very  heroic  mould  to  enable  them  to  bear.  There  is  no  room  for  any 
appeal  ad  misericordiam  in  behalf  of  such  persons.  But  though  we  do 
not  now  inflict  so  much  evil  on  those  who  think  differently  from  us  as 
it  was  formerly  our  custom  to  do,  it  may  be  that  we  do  ourselves  as  much 
evil  as  ever  by  our  treatment  of  them.  Socrates  was  put  to  death,  but 
the  Socratic  philosophy  rose  like  the  sun  in  heaven,  and  spread  its  illu- 
mination over  the  whole  intellectual  firmament.  Christians  were  cast 
to  the  lions,  but  the  Christian  church  grew  up  a  stately  and  spreading 
tree,  overtopping  the  older  and  less  vigorous  growths,  and  stifling  them 
by  its  shade.  Our  merely  social  intolerance  kills  no  one,  roots  out  no 
opinions,  but  induces  men  to  disguise  them  or  to  abstain  from  any  active 
effort  for  their  diffusion.  With  us,  heretical  opinions  do  not  perceptibly 
gain,  or  even  lose,  ground  in  each  decade  or  generation;  they  never  blaze 


JOHN    STUART    MILL  57 

out  far  and  wide,  but  continue  to  smoulder  in  the  narrow  circles  of  think- 
ing and  studious  persons  among  whom  they  originate,  without  ever 
lighting  up  the  general  aflFairs  of  mankind  with  either  a  true  or  a  decep- 
tive light.  And  thus  is  kept  up  a  state  of  things  very  satisfactory  to 
some  minds,  because,  without  the  unpleasant  process  of  fining  or  im- 
prisoning anybody,  it  maintains  all  prevailing  opinions  outwardly  un- 
disturbed, while  it  does  not  absolutely  interdict  the  exercise  of  reason 
by  dissentients  afflicted  with  the  malady  of  thought.  A  convenient  plan 
for  having  peace  in  the  intellectual  world,  and  keeping  all  things  going 
on  therein  very  much  as  they  do  already.  But  the  price  paid  for  this 
sort  of  intellectual  pacification  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  entire  moral  courage 
of  the  human  mind.  A  state  of  things  in  which  a  large  portion  of  the 
most  active  and  inquiring  intellects  find  it  advisable  to  keep  the  general 
principles  and  grounds  of  their  convictions  within  their  own  breasts,  and 
attempt,  in  what  they  address  to  the  public,  to  fit  as  much  as  they  can 
of  their  own  conclusions  to  premises  which  they  have  internally  renounc- 
ed, cannot  send  forth  the  open,  fearless  characters,  and  logical,  consistent 
intellects  who  once  adorned  the  thinking  world.  The  sort  of  men  who 
can  be  looked  for  under  it,  are  either  mere  conformers  to  commonplace, 
or  time-servers  for  truth,  whose  arguments  on  all  great  subjects  are 
meant  for  their  hearers,  and  are  not  those  which  have  convinced  them- 
selves. Those  who  avoid  this  alternative,  do  so  by  narrowing  their 
thoughts  and  interest  to  things  which  can  be  spoken  of  without  venturing 
within  the  region  of  principles,  that  is,  to  small  practical  matters,  which 
would  come  right  of  themselves,  if  but  the  minds  of  mankind  were 
strengthened  and  enlarged,  and  which  will  never  be  made  eflFectually 
right  until  then;  while  that  which  would  strengthen  and  enlarge  men's 
minds,  free  and  daring  speculation  on  the  highest  subjects,  is  abandoned. 
Those  in  whose  eyes  this  reticence  on  the  part  of  heretics  is  no  evil, 
should  consider  in  the  first  place,  that  in  consequence  of  it  there  is  never 
any  fair  and  thorough  discussion  of  heretical  opinions;  and  that  such 
of  them  as  could  not  stand  such  a  discussion,  though  they  may  be  pre- 
vented from  spreading,  do  not  disappear.  But  it  is  not  the  minds  of 
heretics  that  are  deteriorated  most,  by  the  ban  placed  on  all  inquiry 
which  does  not  end  in  the  orthodox  conclusions.  The  greatest  harm 
done  is  to  those  who  are  not  heretics,  and  whose  whole  mental  develop- 
ment is  cramped,  and  their  reason  cowed,  by  the  fear  of  heresy.  Who 
can  compute  what  the  world  loses  in  the  multitude  of  promising  intel- 
lects combined  with  timid  characters,  who  dare  not  follow  out  any  bold, 
vigorous,  independent  train  of  thought,  lest  it  should  land  them  in  some- 
thing which  would  admit  of  being  considered  irreligious  or  immoral  ? 
Among  them  we  may  occasionally  see  some  man  of  deep  conscientious- 
ness, and  subtle  and  refined  understanding,  who  spends  a  Ufe  in  sophis- 
ticating with  an  intelWt  which  he  cannot  silence,  and  exhausts  the  re- 


68  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

sources  of  ingenuity  in  attempting  to  reconcile  the  promptings  of  his 
conscience  and  reason  with  orthodoxy,  wliich  yet  he  does  not,  perhaps, 
to  the  end  succeed  in  doing.  No  one  can  be  a  great  thinker  who  do#s 
not  recognize  that  as  a  thinker  it  is  his  first  duty  to  follow  his  intellect 
to  whatever  conclusions  it  may  lead.  Truth  gains  more  even  by  the 
errors  of  one  who,  with  due  study  and  preparation,  thinks  for  himself, 
than  by  the  true  opinions  of  those  who  hold  them  only  because  they  do 
not  suffer  themselves  to  think.  Not  that  it  is  solely,  or  chiefly,  to  form 
great  thinkers,  that  freedom  of  thinking  is  required.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  as  much  and  even  more  indispensable  to  enable  average  human 
beings  to  attain  the  mental  stature  which  they  are  capable  of.  There 
have  been,  and  may  again  be,  great  individual  thinkers  in  a  general 
atmosphere  of  mental  slavery.  But  there  never  has  been,  nor  ever  will 
be,  in  that  atmosphere,  an  intellectually  active  people.  Where  any  peo- 
ple has  made  a  temporary  approach  to  such  a  character,  it  has  been 
because  the  dread  of  heterodox  speculation  was  for  a  time  suspended. 
Where  there  is  a  tacit  convention  that  principles  are  not  to  be  disputed; 
where  the  discussion  of  the  greatest  questions  wliich  can  occupy  human- 
ity is  considered  to  be  closed,  we  cannot  hope  to  find  that  generally  high 
scale  of  mental  activity  wliich  has  made  some  periods  of  history  so  re- 
markable. Never  when  controversy  avoided  the  subjects  which  are 
large  and  important  enough  to  kindle  enthusiasm,  was  the  mind  of  a 
people  stirred  up  from  its  foundations,  and  the  impulse  given  which 
raised  even  persons  of  the  most  ordinary  intellect  to  something  of  the 
dignity  of  thinking  beings.  Of  such  we  have  had  an  example  in  the 
condition  of  Europe  during  the  times  immediately  following  the  Refor- 
mation; another,  though  limited  to  the  Continent  and  to  a  more  culti- 
vated class,  in  the  speculative  movement  of  the  latter  half  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century;  and  a  third,  of  still  briefer  duration,  in  the  intellectual 
fermentation  of  Germany  during  the  Goethean  and  Fichtean  period. 
These  periods  differed  widely  in  the  particular  opinions  which  they  de- 
veloped ;  but  were  alike  in  this,  that  during  all  three  the  yoke  of  authority 
was  broken.  In  each  an  old  mental  despotism  had  been  thrown  off, 
and  no  new  one  had  yet  taken  its  place.  The  impulse  given  at  these 
three  periods  has  made  Europe  what  it  now  is.  Every  single  improve- 
ment which  has  taken  place  either  in  the  human  mind  or  in  institutions, 
may  be  traced  distinctly  to  one  or  other  of  them.  Appearances  have  for 
some  time  indicated  that  all  three  impulses  are  well  nigh  spent;  and  we 
can  expect  no  fresh  start,  until  we  again  assert  our  mental  freedom. 

Let  us  now  pass  to  the  second  division  of  the  argument,  and,  dismissing 
the  supposition  that  any  of  the  received  opinions  may  be  false,  let  us 
assume  them  to  be  true,  and  examine  into  the  worth  of  the  manner  in 
which  they  are  likely  to  be  held,  when  their  truth  is  not  freely  and  openly 
canvassed.     However  unwillingly  a  person  who  has  a  strong  opinion 


JOHN    STUART    MILL  59 

may  admit  the  possibility  that  his  opinion  may  be  false,  he  ought  to  be 
moved  by  the  consideration  that  however  true  it  may  be,  if  it  is  not  fully, 
frequently,  and  fearlessly  discussed,  it  will  be  held  as  a  dead  dogma, 
not  a  living  truth. 

There  is  a  class  of  persons  (happily  not  quite  so  numerous  as  formerly) 
who  think  it  enough  if  a  person  assents  undoubtingly  to  what  they  think 
true,  though  he  has  no  knowledge  whatever  of  the  grounds  of  the  opinion, 
and  could  not  make  a  tenable  defence  of  it  against  the  most  superficial 
objections.  Such  persons,  if  they  can  once  get  their  creed  taught  from 
authority,  naturally  think  that  rio  good,  and  some  harm,  comes  of  its 
being  allowed  to  be  questioned.  Where  their  influence  prevails,  they 
make  it  nearly  impossible  for  the  received  opinion  to  be  rejected  wisely 
and  considerately,  though  it  may  still  be  rejected  rashly  and  ignorantly; 
for  to  shut  out  discussion  entirely  is  seldom  possible,  and  when  it  once 
gets  in,  beliefs  not  grounded  on  conviction  are  apt  to  give  way  before 
the  slightest  semblance  of  an  argument.  Waiving,  however,  this  possi- 
bility— assuming  that  the  true  opinion  abides  in  the  mind,  but  abides 
as  a  prejudice,  a  beUef  independent  of,  and  proof  against,  argument — 
this  is  not  the  way  in  which  truth  ought  to  be  held  by  a  rational  being. 
This  is  not  knowing  the  truth.  Truth,  thus  held,  is  but  {one  superstition 
the  more,  accidentally  clinging  to  the  words  which  enunciate  a  truth. 

If  the  intellect  and  judgment  of  mankind  ought  to  be  cultivated,  a 
thing  which  Protestants  at  least  do  not  deny,  on  what  can  these  faculties 
be  more  appropriately  exercised  by  any  one,  than  on  the  things  which 
concern  him  so  much  that  it  is  considered  necessary  for  him  to  hold 
opinions  on  them?  If  the  cultivation  of  the  understanding  consists  in 
one  thing  more  than  in  another,  it  is  surely  in  learning  the  grounds  of 
one's  own  opinions. 

Whatever  people  believe,  on  subjects  on  which  it  is  of  the  first  impor- 
tance to  believe  rightly,  they  ought  to  be  able  to  defend  against  at  least 
the  common  objections.  But,  some  one  may  say,  "  Let  them  be  taught 
the  grounds  of  their  opinions.  It  does  not  follow  that  opinions  must 
be  merely  parroted  because  they  are  never  heard  controverted.  Persons 
who  learn  geometry  do  not  simply  commit  the  theorems  to  memory, 
but  understand  and  learn  likewise  the  demonstrations ;  and  it  would  be 
absurd  to  say  that  they  remain  ignorant  of  the  grounds  of  geometrical 
truths,  because  they  never  hear  any  one  deny,  and  attempt  to  disprove 
them."  Undoubtedly;  and  such  teaching  suffices  on  a  subject  like 
mathematics,  where  there  is  nothing  at  all  to  be  said  on  the  wrong  side 
of  the  question.  The  peculiarity  of  the  evidence  of  mathematical  truths 
is,  that  all  the  argument  is  on  one  side.  There  are  no  objections,  and 
no  answers  to  objections.  But  on  every  subject  on  which  difference  of 
opinion  is  possible,  the  truth  depends  on  a  balance  to  be  struck  between 
two  sets  of  conflicting  reasons.     Even  in  natural  philosophy,  there  is 


60  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

always  some  other  explanation  possible  of  the  same  facts;  some  geo- 
centrie  theory  instead  of  heliocentric,  some  phlogiston  instead  of  oxygen ; 
and  it  has  to  be  shown  why  that  other  theory  cannot  be  the  true  one; 
and  until  this  is  shown,  and  until  we  know  how  it  is  shown,  we  do  not 
understand  the  grounds  of  our  opinion.  But  when  we  turn  to  subjects 
infinitely  more  complicated,  to  morals,  religion,  politics,  social  relations, 
and  the  business  of  life,  three-fourths  of  the  arguments  for  every  disputed 
opinion  consist  in  dispelling  the  appearances  which  favor  some  opinion 
different  from  it.  The  greatest  orator,  save  one,  of  antiquity,  has  left 
it  on  record  that  he  always  studied  his  adversary's  case  with  as  great,  if 
not  still  greater,  intensity  than  even  his  own.  What  Cicero  practised 
as  the  means  of  forensic  success,  requires  to  be  imitated  by  all  who  study 
any  subject  in  order  to  arrive  at  the  truth.  He  who  knows  only  his  own 
side  of  the  case,  knows  little  of  that.  His  reasons  may  be  good,  and  no 
one  may  have  been  able  to  refute  them.  But  if  he  is  equally  unable  to 
refute  the  reasons  on  the  opposite  side;  if  he  does  not  so  much  as  know 
what  they  are,  he  has  no  ground  for  preferring  either  opinion.  The 
rational  position  for  him  would  be  suspension  of  judgment,  and  unless 
he  contents  himself  with  that,  he  is  either  led  by  authority,  or  adopts, 
like  the  generality  of  the  world,  the  side  to  which  he  feels  most  inclina- 
tion. Nor  is  it  enough  that  he  should  hear  the  arguments  of  adversaries 
from  his  own  teachers,  presented  as  they  state  them,  and  accompanied 
by  what  they  offer  as  refutations.  That  is  not  the  way  to  do  justice  to 
the  arguments,  or  bring  them  into  real  contact  with  his  own  mind.  He 
must  be  able  to  hear  them  from  persons  who  actually  believe  them ;  who 
defend  them  in  earnest,  and  do  their  very  utmost  for  them.  He  must 
know  them  in  their  most  plausible  and  persuasive  form;  he  must  feel 
the  whole  force  of  the  difficulty  which  the  true  view  of  the  subject  has 
to  encounter  and  dispose  of;  else  he  will  never  really  possess  himself  of 
the  portion  of  truth  which  meets  and  removes  that  difficulty.  Ninety- 
nine  in  a  hundred  of  what  are  called  educated  men  are  in  this  condition ; 
even  of  those  who  can  argue  fluently  for  their  opinions.  Their  conclu- 
sion may  be  true,  but  it  might  be  false  for  anything  they  know — they 
have  never  thrown  themselves  into  the  mental  position  of  those  who 
think  differently  from  them,  and  considered  what  such  persons  may  have 
to  say;  and,  consequently,  they  do  not,  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  word,, 
know  the  doctrine  which  they  themselves  profess.  They  do  not  know 
those  parts  of  it  which  explain  and  justify  the  remainder;  the  consid- 
erations which  show  that  a  fact  which  seemingly  conflicts  with  another 
is  reconcilable  with  it,  or  that,  of  two  apparently  strong  reasons,  one  and 
not  the  other  ought  to  be  preferred.  All  that  part  of  the  truth  which 
turns  the  scale,  and  decides  the  judgment  of  a  completely  informed 
mind,  they  are  strangers  to;  nor  is  it  ever  really  known,  but  to  those  who 
have  attended  equally  and  impartially  to  both  sides,  and  endeavored  to- 


JOHN   STUART   MILL  61 

see  the  reasons  of  both  in  the  strongest  light.  So  essential  is  this  dis- 
cipline to  a  real  understanding  of  moral  and  human  subjects,  that  if 
opponents  of  all  important  truths  do  not  exist,  it  is  indispensable  to  im- 
agine them,  and  supply  them  with  the  strongest  arguments  which  the 
most  skilful  devil's  advocate  can  conjure  up. 

To  abate  the  force  of  these  considerations,  an  enemy  of  free  discussion 
may  be  supposed  to  say  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  mankind  in  general 
to  know  and  understand  all  that  can  be  said  against  or  for  their  opinions 
by  philosophers  and  theologians.  That  it  is  not  needful  for  common 
men  to  be  able  to  expose  all  the  misstatements  or  fallacies  of  an  ingen- 
ious opponent.  That  it  is  enough  if  there  is  always  somebody  capable 
of  answering  them,  so  that  nothing  likely  to  mislead  uninstructed  persons 
remains  unrefuted.  That  simple  minds,  having  been  taught  the  obvious 
grounds  of  the  truths  inculcated  on  them,  may  trust  to  authority  for  the 
rest,  and  being  aware  that  they  have  neither  knowledge  nor  talent  to 
resolve  every  difficulty  which  can  be  raised,  may  repose  in  the  assurance 
that  all  those  which  have  been  raised  have  been  or  can  be  answered, 
by  those  who  are  specially  trained  to  the  task. 

Conceding  to  this  view  of  the  subject  the  utmost  that  can  be  claimed 
for  it  by  those  most  easily  satisfied  with  the  amount  of  understanding 
of  truth  which  ought  to  accompany  the  belief  of  it;  even  so,  the  argu- 
ment for  free  discussion  is  no  way  weakened.  For  even  this  doctrine 
acknowledges  that  mankind  ought  to  have  a  rational  assurance  that  all 
objections  have  been  satisfactorily  answered;  and  how  are  they  to  be 
answered  if  that  which  requires  to  be  answered  is  not  spoken  ?  or  how 
can  the  answer  be  known  to  be  satisfactory,  if  the  objectors  have  no 
opportunity  of  showing  that  it  is  unsatisfactory  ?  If  not  the  public,  at 
least  the  philosophers  and  theologians  who  are  to  resolve  the  difficulties, 
must  make  themselves  familiar  with  those  difficulties  in  their  most 
puzzling  form;  and  this  cannot  be  accomplished  unless  they  are  freely 
stated,  and  placed  in  the  most  advantageous  light  which  they  admit  of. 
The  Catholic  Church  has  its  own  way  of  dealing  with  this  embarrassing 
problem.  It  makes  a  broad  separation  between  those  who  can  be  per- 
mitted to  receive  its  doctrines  on  conviction,  and  those  who  must  accept 
them  on  trust.  Neither,  indeed,  are  allowed  any  choice  as  to  what  they 
will  accept;  but  the  clergy,  such  at  least  as  can  be  fully  confided  in,  may 
admissibly  and  meritoriously  make  themselves  acquainted  with  the  ar- 
guments of  opponents,  in  order  to  answer  them,  and  may,  therefore, 
read  heretical  books;  the  laity,  not  unless  by  special  permission,  hard 
to  be  obtained.  This  discipUne  recognizes  a  knowledge  of  the  enemy's 
case  as  beneficial  to  the  teachers,  but  finds  means,  consistent  with  this, 
of  denying  it  to  the  rest  of  the  world,  thus  giving  to  the  elite  more  mental 
culture,  though  not  more  mental  freedom,  than  it  allows  to  the  mass. 
By  this  device  it  succeeds  in  obtaining  the  kind  of  mental  superiority 


62  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

which  its  purposes  require ;  for  though  culture  without  freedom  never 
made  a  large  and  liberal  mind,  it  can  make  a  clever  nisi  prius  advocate 
of  a  cause.  But  in  countries  professing  Protestantism,  this  resource  is 
denied;  since  Protestants  hold,  at  least  in  theory,  that  the  responsibility 
for  the  choice  of  a  religion  must  be  borne  by  each  for  himself,  and  can- 
not be  thrown  off  upon  teachers.  Besides,  in  the  present  state  of  the 
world,  it  is  practically  impossible  that  writings  which  are  read  by  the 
instructed  can  be  kept  from  the  uninstructed.  If  the  teachers  of  man- 
kind are  to  be  cognizant  of  all  that  they  ought  to  know,  everything  must 
be  free  to  be  written  and  published  without  restraint. 

If,  however,  the  mischievous  operation  of  the  absence  of  free  discus- 
sion, when  the  received  opinions  are  true,  were  confined  to  leaving  men 
ignorant  of  the  grounds  of  those  opinions,  it  might  be  thought  that  this, 
if  an  intellectual,  is  no  moral  evil,  and  does  not  affect  the  worth  of  the 
opinions,  regarded  in  their  influence  on  the  character.  The  fact,  how- 
ever, is,  that  not  only  the  grounds  of  the  opinion  are  forgotten  in  the 
absence  of  discussion,  but  too  often  the  meaning  of  the  opinion  itself. 
The  words  which  convey  it  cease  to  suggest  ideas,  or  suggest  only  a 
small  portion  of  those  they  were  originally  employed  to  communicate. 
Instead  of  a  vivid  conception,  and  a  living  belief,  there  remain  only  a 
few  phrases  retained  by  rote;  or,  if  any  part,  the  shell  and  husk  only  of 
the  meaning  is  retained,  the  finer  essence  being  lost.  The  great  chapter 
in  human  history  which  this  fact  occupies  and  fills,  cannot  be  too  earn- 
estly studied  a^d  meditated  on. 

It  is  illustrated  in  the  experience  of  almost  all  ethical  doctrines  and 
religious  creeds.  They  are  all  full  of  meaning  and  vitality  to  those  who 
originate  them,  and  to  the  direct  disciples  of  the  originators.  Their 
meaning  continues  to  be  felt  in  undiminished  strength,  and  is  perhaps 
brought  out  into  even  fuller  consciousness,  so  long  as  the  struggle  lasts 
to  give  the  doctrine  or  creed  an  ascendency  over  other  creeds.  At  last 
it  either  prevails,  and  becomes  the  general  opinion,  or  its  progress  stops ; 
it  keeps  possession  of  the  ground  it  has  gained,  but  ceases  to  spread  fur- 
ther. When  either  of  these  results  has  become  apparent,  controversy 
on  the  subject  flags,  and  gradually  dies  away.  The  doctrine  has  taken 
its  place,  if  not  as  a  received  opinion,  as  one  of  the  admitted  sects  or 
divisions  of  opinion;  those  who  hold  it  have  generally  inherited,  not 
■  adopted  it;  and  conversion  from  one  of  these  doctrines  to  another,  be- 
ing now  an  exceptional  fact,  occupies  Httle  place  in  the  thoughts  of  their 
professors.  Instead  of  being,  as  at  first,  constantly  on  the  alert,  either 
to  defend  themselves  against  the  world,  or  to  bring  the  world  over  to 
them,  they  have  subsided  into  acquiescence,  and  neither  Hsten,  when 
they  can  help  it,  to  arguments  against  their  creed,  nor  trouble  dissen- 
tients (if  there  be  such)  with  arguments  in  its  favor.  From  this  time 
may  usually  be  dated  the  decline  in  the  living  power  of  the  doctrine. 


JOHN    STUART   MILL  63 

We  often  hear  the  teachers  of  all  creeds  lamenting  the  difficulty  of  keep- 
ing up  in  the  minds  of  believers  a  hvely  apprehension  of  the  truth  which 
they  nominally  recognize,  so  that  it  may  penetrate  the  feelings,  and 
acquire  a  real  mastery  over  the  conduct.  No  such  difficulty  is  com- 
plained of  while  the  creed  is  still  fighting  for  its  existence ;  even  the  weak- 
er combatants  then  know  and  feel  what  they  are  fighting  for,  and  the 
difference  between  it  and  other  doctrines;  and  in  that  period  of  every 
creed's  existence,  not  a  few  persons  may  be  found  who  have  realized  its 
fundamental  principles  in  all  the  forms  of  thought,  have  weighed  and 
considered  them  in  all  their  important  bearings,  and  have  experienced 
the  full  effect  on  the  character  which  beUef  in  that  creed  ought  to  pro- 
duce in  a  mind  thoroughly  imbued  with  it.  But  when  it  has  come  to  be 
an  hereditary  creed,  and  to  be  received  passively,  not  actively — ^when 
the  mind  is  no  longer  compelled,  in  the  same  degree  as  at  first,  to  exercise 
its  vital  powers  on  the  questions  which  its  beUef  presents  to  it,  there  is 
a  progressive  tendency  to  forget  all  of  the  behef  except  the  formularies, 
or  to  give  it  a  dull  and  torpid  assent,  as  if  accepting  it  on  trust  dispensed 
with  the  necessity  of  realizing  it  in  consciousness,  or  testing  it  by  personal 
experience;  until  it  almost  ceases  to  connect  itself  at  all  with  the  inner 
life  of  the  human  being.  Then  are  seen  the  cases,  so  frequent  in  this 
age  of  the  world  as  almost  to  form  the  majority,  in  which  the  creed  re- 
mains as  it  were  outside  the  mind,  incrusting  and  petrifying  it  against 
all  other  influences  addressed  to  the  higher  parts  of  our  nature;  mani- 
festing its  power  by  not  suffering  any  fresh  and  hving  conviction  to  get 
in,  but  itself  doing  nothing  for  mind  or  heart,  except  standing  sentinel 
over  them  to  keep  them  vacant. 

To  what  an  extent  doctrines  intrinsically  fitted  to  make  the  deepest 
impression  upon  the  mind  may  remain  in  it  as  dead  beUefs,  without 
being  ever  realized  in  the  imagination,  the  feehngs,  or  the  understand- 
ing, is  exemphfied  by  the  right  in  which  the  majority  of  believers  hold 
the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  By  Christianity  I  here  mean  what  is 
accounted  such  by  all  churches  and  sects — the  maxims  and  precepts 
contained  in  the  New  Testament.  These  are  considered  sacred,  and 
accepted  as  laws,  by  all  professing  Christians.  Yet  it  is  scarcely  too 
much  to  say  that  not  one  Christian  in  a  thousand  guides  or  tests  las  in- 
dividual conduct  by  reference  to  those  laws.  The  standard  to  which 
he  does  refer  it,  is  the  custom  of  his  nation,  his  class,  or  his  reUgious 
profession.  He  has  thus,  on  the  one  hand,  a  collection  of  ethical  max- 
ims, which  he  beheves  to  have  been  vouchsafed  to  him  by  infaUible 
wisdom  as  rules  for  his  government;  and  on  the  other  a  set  of  every-day 
judgments  and  practices,  which  go  a  certain  length  with  some  of  those 
maxims,  not  so  great  a  length  with  others,  stand  in  direct  opposition  to 
some,  and  are,  on  the  whole,  a  compromise  between  the  Christian  creed 
and  the  interests  and  suggestions  of  worldly  Ufe.     To  the  first  of  these 


64  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

standards  he  gives  his  homage;  to  the  other  his  real  allegiance.  All 
Christians  beUeve  that  the  blessed  are  the  poor  and  humble,  and  those 
who  are  ill-used  by  the  world ;  that  it  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  pass  through 
the  eye  of  a  needle  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven ; 
that  they  should  judge  not,  lest  they  be  judged ;  that  they  should  swear 
not  at  all;  that  they  should  love  their  neighbor  as  themselves;  that  if 
one  take  their  cloak,  they  should  give  him  their  coat  also;  that  they 
should  take  no  thought  for  the  morrow;  that  if  they  would  be  perfect, 
they  should  sell  all  that  they  have  and  give  it  to  the  poor.  They  are  not 
insincere  when  they  say  that  they  believe  these  things.  They  do  beUeve 
them,  as  people  beUeve  what  they  have  always  heard  lauded  and  never 
discussed.  But  in  the  sense  of  that  living  beUef  which  regulates  con- 
duct they  believe  these  doctrines  just  up  to  the  point  to  which  it  is  usual 
to  act  upon  them.  The  doctrines  in  their  integrity  are  serviceable  to 
pelt  adversaries  with;  and  it  is  understood  that  they  are  to  be  put  for- 
ward (when  possible)  as  the  reasons  for  whatever  people  do  that  they 
think  laudable.  But  any  one  who  reminded  them  that  the  maxims 
require  an  infinity  of  things  which  they  never  even  think  of  doing,  would 
gain  nothing  but  to  be  classed  among  those  very  unpopular  characters 
who  affect  to  be  better  than  other  people.  The  doctrines  have  no  hold 
on  ordinary  believers — ^are  not  a  power  in  their  minds.  They  have  an 
habitual  respect  for  the  sound  of  them,  but  no  feeUng  which  spreads 
from  the  words  to  the  things  signified,  and  forces  the  mind  to  take  them 
in,  and  make  them  conform  to  the  formula.  Whenever  conduct  is  con- 
cerned, they  look  round  for  Mr.  A  and  B  to  direct  them  how  far  to  go 
in  obeying  Christ. 

Now  we  may  be  well  assured  that  the  case  was  not  thus,  but  far  other- 
wise, with  the  early  Christians.  Had  it  been  thus,  Christianity  never 
would  have  expanded  from  an  obscure  sect  of  the  despised  Hebrews 
into  the  religion  of  the  Roman  empire.  When  their  enemies  said,  "See 
how  these  Christians  love  one  another "  (a  remark  not  likely  to  be  made 
by  anybody  now),  they  assuredly  had  a  much  liveUer  feeling  of  the  mean- 
ing of  their  creed  than  they  have  ever  had  since.  And  to  this  cause, 
probably,  it  is  chiefly  owing  that  Christianity  now  makes  so  little  prog- 
ress in  extending  its  domain,  and,  after  eighteen  centuries,  is  still  nearly 
confined  to  Europeans  and  the  descendants  of  Europeans.  Even  with 
the  strictly  religious,  who  are  much  in  earnest  about  their  doctrines, 
and  attach  a  greater  amount  of  meaning  to  many  of  them  than  people 
in  general,  it  commonly  happens  that  the  part  which  is  thus  compara- 
tively active  in  their  minds  is  that  which  was  made  by  Calvin,  or  Knox, 
or  some  such  person  much  nearer  in  character  to  themselves.  The  say- 
ings of  Christ  co-exist  passively  in  their  minds,  producing  hardly  any 
effect  beyond  what  is  caused  by  mere  listening  to  words  so  amiable  and 
bland.     There  are  many  reasons,  doubtless,  why  doctrines  which  are 


JOHN    STUART   MILL  65 

the  badge  of  a  sect  retain  more  of  their  vitaUty  than  those  common  to 
all  recognized  sects,  and  why  more  pains  are  taken  by  teachers  to  keep 
their  meaning  alive;  but  one  reason  certainly  is,  that  the  pecuUar  doc- 
trines are  more  questioned,  and  have  to  be  oftener  defended  against 
open  gainsayers.  Both  teachers  and  learners  go  to  sleep  at  their  post, 
as  soon  as  there  is  no  enemy  in  the  field. 

The  same  thing  holds  true,  generally  speaking,  of  all  traditional  doc- 
trines— those  of  prudence  and  knowledge  of  Ufe,  of  morals  or  reUgion. 
All  languages  and  literatures  are  full  of  general  observations  on  Ufe, 
both  as  to  what  it  is,  and  how  to  conduct  one's  self  in  it;  observations 
which  everybody  knows,  which  everybody  repeats  or  hears  with  ac- 
quiesence,  which  are  received  as  truisms,  yet  of  which  most  people  first 
truly  learn  the  meaning,  when  experience,  generally  of  a  painful  kind, 
has  made  it  a  reality  to  them.  How  often,  when  smarting  under  some 
unforeseen  misfortune  or  disappointment,  does  a  person  call  to  mind 
some  proverb  or  common  saying,  famihar  to  him  all  his  life,  the  meaning 
of  which,  if  he  had  ever  before  felt  it  as  he  does  now,  would  have  saved 
him  from  the  calamity.  There  are  indeed  reasons  for  this,  other  than 
the  absence  of  discussion ;  there  are  many  truths  of  which  the  full  mean- 
ing cannot  be  reahzed,  until  personal  experience  has  brought  it  home. 
But  much  more  of  the  meaning  even  of  these  would  have  been  under- 
stood, and  what  was  understood  would  have  been  far  more  deeply  im- 
pressed on  the  mind,  if  the  man  had  been  accustomed  to  hear  it  argued 
pro  and  con  by  people  who  did  understand  it.  The  tendency  of  mankind 
to  leave  off  thinking  about  a  thing  when  it  is  no  longer  doubtful,  is  the 
cause  of  half  their  errors,  A  contemporary  author  has  well  spoken  of 
"  the  deep  slumber  of  a  decided  opinion." 

But  what!  (it  may  be  asked)  Is  the  absence  of  unanimity  an  indis- 
pensable condition  of  true  knowledge  ?  Is  it  necessary  that  some  part 
of  mankind  should  persist  in  error,  to  enable  any  to  reaUze  the  truth  ? 
Does  a  belief  cease  to  be  real  and  vital  as  soon  as  it  is  generally  received 
— and  is  a  proposition  never  thoroughly  understood  and  felt  unless  some 
doubt  of  it  remains  ?  As  soon  as  mankind  have  unanimously  accepted 
a  truth,  does  the  truth  perish  within  them  ?  The  highest  aim  and  best 
result  of  improved  intelligence,  it  has  hitherto  been  thought,  is  to  unite 
mankind  more  and  more  in  the  acknowledgment  of  all  important  truths ; 
and  does  the  intelligence  last  only  as  long  as  it  has  not  achieved  its  ob- 
ject ?  Do  the  fruits  of  conquest  perish  by  the  very  completeness  of  the 
victory  ? 

I  affirm  no  such  thing.  As  mankind  improve,  the  number  of  doctrines 
which  are  no  longer  disputed  or  doubted  will  be  constantly  on  the  in- 
crease ;  and  the  well-being  of  mankind  may  almost  be  measured  by  the 
number  and  gravity  of  the  truths  which  have  reached  the  point  of  being 
uncontested.     The  cessation,  on  one  question  after  another,  of  serious 


66  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

controversy,  is  one  of  the  necessary  incidents  of  the  consolidation  of 
opinion ;  a  consolidation  as  salutary  in  the  case  of  true  opinions,  as  it  is 
dangerous  and  noxious  when  the  opinions  are  erroneous.  But  though 
this  gradual  narrowing  of  the  bounds  of  diversity  of  opinion  is  necessary 
in  both  senses  of  the  term,  being  at  once  inevitable  and  indispensable, 
we  are  not  therefore  obliged  to  conclude  that  all  its  consequences  must 
be  beneficial.  The  loss  of  so  important  an  aid  to  the  intelligent  and 
living  apprehension  of  a  truth,  as  is  afforded  by  the  necessity  of  explain- 
ing it  to,  or  defending  it  against,  opponents,  though  not  suflBcient  to 
outweigh,  is  no  trifling  drawback  from,  the  benefit  of  its  universal  recog- 
nition. Where  this  advantage  can  no  longer  be  had,  I  confess  I  should 
like  to  see  the  teachers  of  mankind  endeavoring  to  provide  a  substitute 
for  it;  some  contrivance  for  making  the  diflSculties  of  the  question  as 
present  to  the  learner's  consciousness  as  if  they  were  pressed  upon  him 
by  a  dissentient  champion,  eager  for  his  conversion. 

But  instead  of  seeking  cofitrivances  for  this  purpose,  they  have  lost 
those  they  formerly  had.  The  Socratic  dialectics,  so  magnificently 
exemplified  in  the  dialogues  of  Plato,  were  a  contrivance  of  this  descrip- 
tion. They  were  essentially  a  negative  discussion  of  the  great  questions 
of  philosophy  and  life,  directed  with  consummate  skill  to  the  purpose  of 
convincing  any  one  who  had  merely  adopted  the  commonplaces  of  re- 
ceived opinion,  that  he  did  not  understand  the  subject — that  he  as  yet 
attached  no  definite  meaning  to  the  doctrines  he  professed ;  in  order  that, 
becoming  aware  of  his  ignorance,  he  might  be  put  in  the  way  to  obtain 
a  stable  belief,  resting  on  a  clear  apprehension  both  of  the  meaning  of 
doctrines  and  of  their  evidence.  The  school  disputations  of  the  Middle 
Ages  had  a  somewhat  similar  object.  They  were  intended  to  make 
sure  that  the  pupil  understood  his  own  opinion,  and  (by  necessary  cor- 
relation) the  opinion  opposed  to  it,  and  could  enforce  the  grounds  of  the 
one  and  confute  those  of  the  other.  These  last-mentioned  contests  had 
indeed  the  incurable  defect,  that  the  premises  appealed  to  were  taken 
from  authority,  not  from  reason;  and,  as  a  discipline  to  the  mind,  they 
were  in  every  respect  inferior  to  the  powerful  dialectics  which  formed 
the  intellects  of  the  "  Socratici  viri  " ;  but  the  modem  mind  owes  far  more 
to  both  than  it  is  generally  willing  to  admit,  and  the  present  modes  of 
education  contain  nothing  which  in  the  smallest  degree  suppUes  the  place 
either  of  the  one  or  of  the  other.  A  person  who  derives  all  his  instruc- 
tion from  teachers  or  books,  even  if  he  escape  the  besetting  temptation 
of  contenting  himself  with  cram,  is  under  no  compulsion  to  hear  both 
sides ;  accordingly  it  is  far  from  a  frequent  accomplishment,  even  among 
thinkers,  to  know  both  sides;  and  the  weakest  part  of  what  everybody 
says  in  defence  of  his  opinion  is  what  he  intends;  as  a  reply  to  antago- 
nists. It  is  the  fashion  of  the  present  time  to  disparage  negative  logic 
— that  which  points  out  weaknesses  in  theory  or  errors  in  practice,  with- 


JOHN    STUART   MILL  67 

out  establishing  positive  truths.  Such  negative  criticism  would  indeed 
be  poor  enough  as  an  ultimate  result;  but  as  a  means  to  attaining  any 
positive  knowledge  or  conviction  worthy  the  name,  it  cannot  be  valued 
too  highly;  and  until  people  are  again  systematically  trained  to  it,  there 
will  be  few  great  thinkers,  and  a  low  general  average  of  intellect,  in  any 
but  the  mathematical  and  physical  departments  of  speculation.  On 
any  other  subject,  no  one's  opinions  deserve  the  name  of  knowledge, 
except  so  far  as  he  has  either  had  forced  upon  him  by  others,  or  gone 
through  of  himself,  the  same  mental  process  which  would  have  been 
required  of  him  in  carrying  on  an  active  controversy  with  opponents. 
That,  therefore,  which  when  absent,  it  is  so  indispensable,  but  so  diflS- 
cult,  to  create,  how  worse  than  absurd  it  is  to  forego,  when  spontaneously 
offering  itself !  If  there  are  any  persons  who  contest  a  received  opinion,  or 
who  will  do  so  if  law  or  opinion  will  let  them,  let  us  thank  them  for  it, 
open  our  minds  to  listen  to  them,  and  rejoice  that  there  is  some  one  to 
do  for  us  what  we  otherwise  ought,  if  we  have  any  regard  for  either  the 
certainty  or  the  xitality  of  our  convictions,  to  do  with  much  greater  labor 
for  ourselves. 

It  still  remains  to  speak  of  one  of  the  principal  causes  which  make 
diversity  of  opinion  advantageous,  and  will  continue  to  do  so  until  man- 
kind shall  have  entered  a  stage  of  intellectual  advancement  which  at 
present  seems  at  an  incalculable  distance.  We  have  hitherto  considered 
only  two  possibihties :  That  the  received  opinion  may  he  false,  and  some 
other  opinion,  consequently,  true;  or  that,  the  received  opinion  being 
true,  a  conflict  with  the  opposite  error  is  essential  to  a  clear  apprehen- 
sion and  deep  feeling  of  its  truth.  But  there  is  a  commoner  case  than 
either  of  these — when  the  conflicting  doctrines,  instead  of  being  one  true 
and  the  other  false,  share  the  truth  between  them ;  and  the  nonconform- 
ing opinion  is  needed  to  supply  the  remainder  of  the  truth,  of  which  the 
received  doctrine  embodies  only  a  part.  Popular  opinions,  on  subjects 
not  palpable  to  sense,  are  often  true,  but  seldom  or  never  the  whole  truth. 
They  are  a  part  of  the  truth ;  sometimes  a  greater,  sometimes  a  smaller 
part,  but  exaggerated,  distorted,  and  disjoined  from  the  truths  by  which 
they  ought  to  be  accompanied  and  limited.  Heretical  opinions,  on  the 
other  hand,  are  generally  some  of  these  suppressed  and  neglected  truths, 
bursting  the  bonds  which  kept  them  down,  and  either  seeking  reconcilia- 
tion with  the  truth  contained  in  the  common  opinion,  or  fronting  it  as 
enemies,  and  setting  themselves  up,  with  similar  exclusiveness,  as  the 
whole  truth.  The  latter  case  is  hitherto  the  most  frequent,  as,  in  the 
human  mind,  one-sidedness  has  always  been  the  rule,  and  many-sided- 
ness the  exception.  Hence,  even  in  revolutions  of  opinion,  one  part  of 
the  truth  usually  sets  while  another  rises.  Even  progress,  which  ought 
to  superadd,  for  the  most  part  only  substitutes  one  partial  and  incom- 
plete truth  for  another;  improvement  consisting  chiefly  in  this,  that  the 


68  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

new  fragment  of  truth  is  more  wanted,  more  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the 
time,  than  that  which  it  displaces. 

Such  being  the  partial  character  of  prevailing  opinions,  even  when 
resting  on  a  true  foundation,  every  opinion  which  embodies  somewhat 
of  the  portion  of  truth  which  the  common  opinion  omits,  ought  to  be 
considered  precious,  with  whatever  amount  of  error  and  confusion  that 
truth  may  be  blended.  No  sober  judge  of  human  affairs  will  feel  bound 
to  be  indignant  because  those  who  force  on  our  notice  truths  which  we 
should  otherwise  have  overlooked,  overlook  some  of  those  which  we  see. 
Rather,  he  will  think  that  so  long  as  popular  truth  is  one-sided,  it  is 
more  desirable  than  otherwise  that  unpopular  truth  should  have  one- 
sided assertors  too;  such  being  usually  the  most  energetic,  and  the  most 
likely  to  compel  reluctant  attention  to  the  fragment  of  wisdom  which  they 
proclaim  as  if  it  were  the  whole. 

Thus,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  when  nearly  all  the  instructed,  and 
all  those  of  the  uninstructed  who  were  led  by  them,  were  lost  in  admira- 
tion of  what  is  called  civilization,  and  of  the  marvels  of  modern  science, 
literature,  and  philosophy,  and  while  greatly  overrating  the  amount  of 
unlikeness  between  the  men  of  modern  and  those  of  ancient  times,  in- 
dulged the  belief  that  the  whole  of  the  difference  was  in  their  own  favor; 
with  what  a  salutary  shock  did  the  paradoxes  of  Rousseau  explode  like 
bombshells  in  the  midst,  dislocating  the  compact  mass  of  one-sided 
opinion,  and  forcing  its  elements  to  recombine  in  a  better  form  and  with 
additional  ingredients.  Not  that  the  current  opinions  were  on  the  whole 
farther  from  the  truth  than  Rousseau's  were;  on  the  contrary,  they  were 
nearer  to  it;  they  contained  more  of  positive  truth,  and  very  much  less 
of  error.  Nevertheless  there  lay  in  Rousseau's  doctrine,  and  has  floated 
down  the  stream  of  opinion  along  with  it,  a  considerable  amount  of  ex- 
actly those  truths  which  the  popular  opinion  wanted ;  and  these  are  the 
deposit  which  was  left  behind  when  the  flood  subsided.  The  superior 
worth  of  simplicity  of  life,  the  enervating  and  demoralizing  effect  of  the 
trammels  and  hypocrisies  of  artificial  society,  are  ideas  which  have  never 
been  entirely  absent  from  cultivated  minds  since  Rousseau  wrote;  and 
they  will  in  time  produce  their  due  effect,  though  at  present  needing  to 
be  asserted  as  much  as  ever,  and  to  be  asserted  by  deeds,  for  words,  on 
this  subject,  have  nearly  exhausted  their  power. 

In  politics,  again,  it  is  almost  a  commonplace,  that  a  party  of  order 
or  stability,  and  a  party  of  progress  or  reform,  are  both  necessary  ele- 
ments of  a  healthy  state  of  political  life;  until  the  one  or  the  other  shall 
have  so  enlarged  its  mental  grasp  as  to  be  a  party  equally  of  order  and  of 
progress,  knowing  and  distinguishing  what  is  fit  to  be  preserved  from 
what  ought  to  be  swept  away.  Each  of  these  modes  of  thinking  derives 
its  utility  from  the  deficiencies  of  the  other;  but  it  is  in  a  great  measure 
the  opposition  of  the  other  that  keeps  each  within  the  limits  of  reason 


JOHN    STUART    MILL  00 

and  sanity.  Unless  opinions  favorable  to  democracy  and  to  aristocracy, 
to  property  and  to  equality,  to  co-operation  and  to  competition,  to  luxury 
and  to  abstinence,  to  sociality  and  individuality,  to  liberty  and  discipline, 
and  all  the  other  standing  antagonisms  of  practical  life,  are  expressed 
with  equal  freedom,  and  enforced  and  defended  with  equal  talent  and 
energy,  there  is  no  chance  of  both  elements  obtaining  their  due;  one 
scale  is  sure  to  go  up,  and  the  other  down.  Truth,  in  the  great  practical 
concerns  of  life,  is  so  much  a  question  of  the  reconciling  and  combining 
of  opposites,  that  very  few  have  minds  suflBciently  capacious  and  im- 
partial to  make  the  adjustment  with  an  approach  to  correctness,  and  it 
has  to  be  made  by  the  rough  process  of  a  struggle  between  combatants 
fighting  under  hostile  banners.  On  any  of  the  great  open  questions 
just  enumerated,  if  either  of  the  two  opinions  has  a  better  claim  than  the 
other,  not  merely  to  be  tolerated,  but  to  be  encouraged  and  countenanced, 
it  is  the  one  which  happens  at  the  particular  time  and  place  to  be  in  a 
minority.  That  is  the  opinion  which,  for  the  time  being,  represents  the 
neglected  interests,  the  side  of  human  well-being  which  is  in  danger  of 
obtaining  less  than  its  share.  I  am  aware  that  there  is  not,  in  this  coun- 
try, any  intolerance  of  differences  of  opinion  on  most  of  these  topics. 
They  are  adduced  to  show,  by  admitted  and  multiplied  examples,  the 
universality  of  the  fact,  that  only  through  diversity  of  opinion  is  there, 
in  the  existing  state  of  human  intellect,  a  chance  of  fair  play  to  all  sides 
of  the  truth.  When  there  are  persons  to  be  found,  who  form  an  excep- 
tion to  the  apparent  unanimity  of  the  world  on  any  subject,  even  if  the 
world  is  in  the  right,  it  is  always  probable  that  dissentients  have  some- 
thing worth  hearing  to  say  for  themselves,  and  that  truth  would  lose 
something  by  their  silence. 

It  may  be  objected,  "  But  some  received  principles,  especially  on  the 
highest  and  most  vital  subjects,  are  more  than  half-truths.  The  Chris- 
tian morality,  for  instance,  is  the  whole  truth  on  that  subject,  and  if  any 
one  teaches  a  morality  which  varies  from  it,  he  is  wholly  in  error."  As 
this  is  of  all  cases  the  most  important  in  practice,  none  can  be  fitter  to 
test  the  general  maxim.  But  before  pronouncing  what  Christian  moral- 
ity is  or  is  not,  it  would  be  desirable  to  decide  what  is  meant  by  Christian 
morality.  If  it  means  the  morality  of  the  New  Testament,  I  wonder 
that  any  one  who  derives  his  knowledge  of  this  from  the  book  itself,  can 
suppose  that  it  was  announced,  or  intended,  as  a  complete  doctrine  of 
morals.  The  Gospel  always  refers  to  a  pre-existing  morality,  and  con- 
fines its  precepts  to  the  particulars  in  which  that  morality  was  to  be  cor- 
rected, or  superseded  by  a  wider  and  higher;  expressing  itself,  moreover, 
in  terms  most  general,  often  impossible  to  be  interpreted  literally,  and 
possessing  rather  the  impressiveness  of  poetry  or  eloquence  than  the 
precision  of  legislation.  To  extract  from  it  a  body  of  ethical  doctrine 
has  never  been  possible  without  eking  it  out  from  the  Old  Testament; 


70  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

that  is,  from  a  system  elaborate  indeed,  but  in  many  respects  barbarous, 
and  intended  only  for  a  barbarous  people.  St.  Paul,  a  declared  enemy 
to  this  Judaical  mode  of  interpreting  the  doctrine  and  filling  up  the 
scheme  of  his  Master,  equally  assumes  a  pre-existing  morality,  namely 
that  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans;  and  his  advice  to  Christians  is  in  a 
great  measure  a  system  of  accommodation  to  that;  even  to  the  extent 
of  giving  an  apparent  sanction  to  slavery.  What  is  called  Christian, 
but  should  rather  be  termed  theological,  morality,  was  not  the  work  of 
Christ  or  the  Apostles,  but  is  of  much  later  origin,  having  been  gradually 
built  up  by  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  first  five  centuries,  and  though 
not  implicitly  adopted  by  modern  and  Protestants,  has  been  much  less 
modified  by  them  than  might  have  been  expected.  For  the  most  part, 
indeed,  they  have  contented  themselves  with  cutting  off  the  additions 
which  had  been  made  to  it  in  the  Middle  Ages,  each  sect  supplying  the 
l^ace  by  fresh  additions,  adapted  to  its  own  character  and  tendencies. 
That  mankind  owe  a  great  debt  to  this  morality,  and  to  its  early  teachers, 
I  should  be  the  last  person  to  deny;  but  I  do  not  scruple  to  say  of  it  that 
it  is,  in  many  important  points,  incomplete  and  one-sided,  and  that  un- 
less ideas  and  feelings,  not  sanctioned  by  it,  had  contributed  to  the  for- 
mation of  European  life  and  character,  human  affairs  would  have  been 
in  a  worse  condition  than  they  now  are. 

Christian  morality  (so  called)  has  all  the  characters  of  a  reaction;  it 
is,  in  great  part,  a  protest  against  Paganism.  Its  ideal  is  negative 
rather  than  positive;  passive  rather  than  active;  Innocence  rather  than 
Nobleness;  Abstinence  from  Evil,  rather  than  energetic  Pursuit  of  Good ; 
in  its  precepts  (as  has  been  well  said)  "  thou  shalt  not "  predominates 
unduly  over  "  thou  shalt."  In  its  horror  of  sensuality,  it  made  an  idol  of 
asceticism,  which  has  been  gradually  compromised  away  into  one  of 
legality.  It  holds  out  the  hope  of  heaven  and  the  threat  of  hell,  as  the 
appointed  and  appropriate  motives  to  a  virtuous  life — ^in  this  falling  far 
below  the  best  of  the  ancients,  and  doing  what  lies  in  it  to  give  to  human 
morality  an  essentially  selfish  character,  by  disconnecting  each  man's 
feelings  of  duty  from  the  interests  of  his  fellow-creatures,  except  so  far 
as  a  self-interested  inducement  is  offered  to  him  for  consulting  them.  It 
is  essentially  a  doctrine  of  passive  obedience;  it  inculcates  submission 
to  all  authorities  found  established;  who  indeed  are  not  to  be  actively 
obeyed  when  they  command  what  religion  forbids,  but  who  are  n©t  to 
be  resisted,  far  less  rebelled  against,  for  any  amount  of  wrong  to  our- 
selves. And  while,  in  the  morality  of  the  best  Pagan  nations,  duty  to 
the  State  holds  even  a  disproportionate  place,  infringing  on  the  just  lib- 
erty of  the  individual,  in  purely  Christian  ethics,  that  grand  department 
of  duty  is  scarcely  noticed  or  acknowledged.  It  is  in  the  Koran,  not  the 
New  Testament,  that  we  read  the  maxim — "A  ruler  who  appoints  any 
man  to  an  office,  when  there  is  in  his  dominions  another  man  better 


JOHN    STUART   MILL  71 

qualified  for  it,  sins  against  God  and  against  the  State."  What  little 
recognition  the  idea  of  obligation  to  the  public  obtains  in  modern  moral- 
ity, is  derived  from  Greek  and  Roman  sources,  not  from  Christian;  as, 
even  in  the  morality  of  private  life,  whatever  exists  of  magnanimity, 
highmindedness,  personal  dignity,  even  the  sense  of  honor,  is  derived 
from  the  purely  human,  not  the  religious,  part  of  our  education,  and  never 
could  have  grown  out  of  a  standard  of  ethics  in  which  the  only  worth, 
professedly  recognized,  is  that  of  obedience. 

I  am  as  far  as  any  one  from  pretending  that  these  defects  are  necessarily 
inherent  in  the  Christian  ethics,  in  every  manner  in  which  it  can  be  conceiv- 
ed, or  that  the  many  requisites  of  a  complete  moral  doctrine  which  it  does 
not  contain,  do  not  admit  of  being  reconciled  with  it.  Far  less  would 
I  insinuate  this  of  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  Christ  himself.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  sayings  of  Christ  are  all  that  I  can  see  any  evidence  of  their 
having  been  intended  to  be;  that  they  are  irreconcilable  with  nothing 
which  a  comprehensive  moraUty  requires;  that  everything  which  is  ex- 
cellent in  ethics  may  be  brought  within  them,  with  no  greater  violence 
to  their  language  than  has  been  done  to  it  by  all  who  have  attempted  to 
deduce  from  them  any  practical  system  of  conduct  whatever.  But  it  is 
quite  consistent  with  this,  to  beUeve  that  they  contain,  and  were  meant 
to  contain,  only  a  part  of  the  truth;  that  many  essential  elements  of  the 
highest  morality  are  among  the  things  which  are  not  provided  for,  nor 
intended  to  be  provided  for,  in  the  recorded  deliverances  of  the  Founder 
of  Christianity,  and  which  have  been  entirely  thrown  aside  in  the  system 
of  ethics  erected  on  the  basis  of  those  deliverances  by  the  Christian 
Church.  And  this  being  so,  I  think  it  a  great  error  to  persist  in  attempt- 
ing to  find  in  the  Christian  doctrine  that  complete  rule  for  our  guidance, 
which  its  author  intended  it  to  sanction  and  enforce,  but  only  paMally 
to  provide.  I  believe,  too,  that  this  narrow  theory  is  becoming  a  grave 
practical  evil,  detracting  greatly  from  the  moral  training  and  instruction 
which  so  many  well-meaning  persons  are  now  at  length  exerting  them- 
selves to  promote.  I  much  fear  that  by  attempting  to  form  the  mind 
and  feelings  on  an  exclusively  religious  type,  and  discarding  those  secu- 
lar standards  (as  for  want  of  a  better  name  they  may  be  called)  which 
heretofore  co-existed  with  and  supplemented  the  Christian  ethics,  re- 
ceiving some  of  its  spirit,  and  infusing  into  it  some  of  theirs,  there  will 
result,  and  is  even  now  resulting,  a  low,  abject,  servile  type  of  character, 
which,  submit  itself  as  it  may  to  what  it  deems  the  Supreme  Will,  is 
incapable  of  rising  to  or  sympathizing  in  the  conception  of  Supreme 
Groodness.  I  believe  that  other  ethics  than  any  which  can  be  evolved 
from  exclusively  Christian  sources,  must  exist  side  by  side  with  Chris- 
tian ethics  to  produce  the  moral  regeneration  of  mankind ;  and  that  the 
Christian  system  is  no  exception  lo  the  rule  that  in  an  imperfect  state 
of  the  human  mind  the  interests  of  truth  require  a  diversity  of  opinions. 


72  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

It  is  not  necessary  that  in  ceasing  to  ignore  the  moral  truths  not  con 
tained  in  Christianity,  men  should  ignore  any  of  those  which  it  does  con- 
tain. Such  prejudice,  or  oversight,  when  it  occurs,  is  altogether  an  evil; 
but  it  is  one  from  which  we  cannot  hope  to  be  always  exempt,  and  must 
be  regarded  as  the  price  paid  for  an  inestimable  good.  The  exclusive 
pretension  made  by  a  part  of  the  truth  to  be  the  whole,  must  and  ought 
to  be  protested  against;  and  if  a  reactionary  impulse  should  make  the 
protesters  unjust  in  their  turn,  this  one-sidedness,  like  the  other,  may  be 
lamented,  but  must  be  tolerated.  If  Christians  would  teach  infidels  to 
be  just  to  Christianity,  they  should  themselves  be  just  to  infidelity.  It 
can  do  truth  no  service  to  blink  the  fact,  known  to  all  who  have  the  most 
ordinary  acquaintance  with  literary  history,  that  a  large  portion  of  the 
truest  and  most  valuable  moral  teaching  has  been  the  work,  not  only  of 
men  who  did  not  know,  but  of  men  who  knew  and  rejected,  the  Christian 
faith. 

I  do  not  pretend  that  the  most  unlimited  use  of  the  freedom  of  enun- 
ciating all  possible  opinions  would  put  an  end  to  the  evils  of  religious 
or  philosophical  sectarianism.  Every  truth  which  men  of  narrow  capac- 
ity are  in  earnest  about,  is  sure  to  be  asserted,  inculcated,  and  in  many 
ways  even  acted  on,  as  if  no  other  truth  existed  in  the  world,  or  at  all 
events,  none  that  could  limit  or  qualify  the  first.  I  acknowledge  that  the 
tendency  of  all  opinions  to  become  sectarian  is  not  cured  by  the  freest 
discussion,  but  is  often  heightened  and  exacerbated  thereby;  the  truth 
which  ought  to  have  been,  but  was  not,  seen,  being  rejected  all  the  more 
violently  because  proclaimed  by  persons  regarded  as  opponents.  But 
it  is  not  on  the  impassioned  partisan,  it  is  on  the  calmer  and  more  dis- 
interested bystander,  that  this  collision  of  opinions  works  its  salutary 
effect.  Not  the  violent  conflict  between  parts  of  the  truth,  but  the  quiet 
suppression  of  half  of  it,  is  the  formidable  evil;  there  is  always  hope 
when  people  are  forced  to  listen  to  both  sides ;  it  is  when  they  attend  only 
to  one  that  errors  harden  into  prejudices,  and  truth  itself  ceases  to  have 
the  effect  of  truth,  by  being  exaggerated  into  falsehood.  And  since 
there  are  few  mental  attributes  more  rare  than  that  judicial  faculty 
which  can  sit  in  intelhgent  judgment  between  two  sides  of  a  question, 
of  which  only  one  is  represented  by  an  advocate  before  it,  truth  has  no 
chance  but  in  proportion  as  every  side  of  it,  every  opinion  which  em- 
bodies any  fraction  of  the  truth,  not  only  finds  advocates,  but  is  so  ad- 
vocated as  to  be  listened  to. 

We  have  now  recognized  the  necessity  to  the  mental  well-being  of 
mankind  (on  which  all  their  other  well-being  depends)  of  freedom  of 
opinion,  and  freedom  of  the  expression  of  opinion,  on  four  distinct 
grounds ;  which  we  will  now  briefly  recapitulate. 

First,  if  any  opinion  is  compelled  to  silence,  that  opinion  may,  for 


JOHN    STUART    MILL  7S 

aught  we  can  certainly  know,  be  true.  To  deny  this  is  to  assume  our 
own  infaUibihty. 

Secondly,  though  the  silenced  opinion  be  an  error,  it  may,  and  very 
commonly  does,  contain  a  portion  of  truth;  and  since  the  general  or 
prevailing  opinion  on  any  subject  is  rarely  or  never  the  whole  truth,  it 
is  only  by  the  coUision  of  adverse  opinions  that  the  remainder  of  the  truth 
has  any  chance  of  being  suppUed. 

Thirdly,  even  if  the  received  opinion  be  not  only  true,  but  the  whole 
truth ;  unless  it  is  suffered  to  be,  and  actually  is,  vigorously  and  earnestly 
contested,  it  will,  by  most  of  those  who  receive  it,  be  held  in  the  manner 
of  a  prejudice,  with  little  comprehension  or  feehng  of  its  rational  grounds. 
And  not  only  this,  but.  Fourthly,  the  meaning  of  the  doctrine  itself  will 
be  in  danger  of  being  lost,  or  enfeebled,  and  deprived  of  its  vital  effect  on 
the  character  and  conduct;  the  dogma  becoming  a  mere  formal  pro- 
fession, inefficacious  for  good,  but  cumbering  the  ground,  and  prevent- 
ing the  growth  of  any  real  and  heartfelt  conviction,  from  reason  or  per- 
sonal experience. 

Before  quitting  the  subject  of  freedom  of  opinion,  it  is  fit  to  take  some 
notice  of  those  who  say  that  the  free  expression  of  all  opinions  should 
be  permitted,  on  condition  that  the  manner  be  temperate,  and  do  not 
pass  the  bounds  of  fair  discussion.  Much  might  be  said  on  the  impos- 
sibihty  of  fixing  where  these  supposed  bounds  are  to  be  placed;  for  if 
the  test  be  offence  to  those  whose  opinions  are  attacked,  I  think  experience 
testifies  that  this  offence  is  given  whenever  the  attack  is  telling  and 
powerful,  and  that  every  opponent  who  pushes  them  hard,  and  whom 
they  fijid  it  difficult  to  answer,  appears  to  them,  if  he  shows  any  strong 
feeling  on  the  subject,  an  intemperate  opponent.  But  this,  though  an 
important  consideration  in  a  practical  point  of  view,  merges  in  a  more 
fundamental  objection.  Undoubtedly  the  manner  of  asserting  an  opin- 
ion, even  though  it  be  a  true  one,  may  be  very  objectionable,  and  may 
justly  incur  severe  censure.  But  the  principal  offences  of  the  kind  are 
such  as  it  is  mostly  impossible,  unless  by  accidental  self -betrayal,  to 
bring  home  to  conviction.  The  gravest  of  them  is,  to  argue  sophistic- 
ally,  to  suppress  facts  or  arguments,  to  misstate  the  elements  of  the  case, 
or  misrepresent  the  opposite  opinion.  But  all  this,  even  to  the  most 
aggravated  degree,  is  so  continually  done  in  perfect  good  faith,  by  per- 
sons who  are  not  considered,  and  in  many  other  respects  may  not  de- 
serve to  be  considered,  ignorant  or  incompetent,  that  it  is  rarely  possible, 
on  adequate  grounds,  conscientiously  to  stamp  the  misrepresentation 
as  morally  culpable;  and  still  less  could  law  presume  to  interfere  with 
this  kind  of  controversial  misconduct.  With  regard  to  what  is  commonly 
meant  by  intemperate  discussion,  namely,  invective,  sarcasm,  person- 
ality, and  the  Hke,  the  denunciation  of  these  weapons  would  deserve 


74  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

more  sympathy  if  it  were  ever  proposed  to  interdict  them  equally  to  both 
sides ;  but  it  is  only  desired  to  restrain  the  employment  of  them  against 
the  prevailing  opinion;  against  the  unprevailing  they  may  not  only  be 
used  without  general  disapproval,  but  will  be  hkely  to  obtain  for  him 
who  uses  them  the  praise  of  honest  zeal  and  righteous  indignation.  Yet 
whatever  mischief  arises  from  their  use,  is  greatest  when  they  are  em- 
ployed against  the  comparatively  defenceless;  and  whatever  unfair 
advantage  can  be  derived  by  any  opinion  from  this  mode  of  asserting  it, 
accrues  almost  exclusively  to  received  opinions.  The  worst  offence  of 
this  kind  which  can  be  committed  by  a  polemic,  is  to  stigmatize  those 
who  hold  the  contrary  opinion  as  bad  and  immoral  men.  To  calumny 
of  this  sort,  those  who  hold  any  unpopular  opinion  are  pecuHarly  ex- 
posed, because  they  are  in  general  few  and  uninfluential,  and  nobody 
but  themselves  feels  much  interested  in  seeing  justice  done  them;  but 
this  weapon  is,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  denied  to  those  who  attack 
a  prevailing  opinion;  they  can  neither  use  it  with  safety  to  themselves, 
nor,  if  they  could,  would  it  do  anything  but  recoil  on  their  own  cause. 
In  general,  opinions  contrary  to  those  commonly  received  can  obtain 
a  hearing  only  by  studied  moderation  of  language,  and  the  most  cautious 
avoidance  of  unnecessary  offence,  from  which  they  hardly  ever  deviate 
even  in  a  slight  degree  without  losing  ground;  while  unmeasured  vitu- 
peration employed  on  the  side  of  the  prevailing  opinion,  really  does 
deter  people  from  professing  contrary  opinions,  and  from  listening  to 
those  who  profess  them.  For  the  interest,  therefore,  of  truth  and  justice, 
it  is  far  more  important  to  restrain  this  employment  of  vituperative 
language  than  the  other;  and,  for  example,  if  it  were  necessary  to  choose, 
there  would  be  much  more  need  to  discourage  offensive  attacks  on  infi- 
delity than  on  religion.  It  is,  however,  obvious  that  law  and  authority 
have  no  business  with  restraining  either,  while  opinion  ought,  in  every 
instance,  to  determine  its  verdict  by  the  circumstances  of  the  individual 
case;  condemning  every  one,  on  whichever  side  of  the  argument  he 
places  himself,  in  whose  mode  of  advocacy  either  want  of  candor,  or 
malignity,  bigotry,  or  intolerance  of  feeling  manifest  themselves;  but 
not  inferring  these  vices  from  the  side  which  a  person  takes,  though  it 
be  on  the  contrary  side  of  the  question  to  our^own;  and  giving  merited 
honor  to  every  one,  whatever  opinion  he  may  hold,  who  has  calmness 
to  see  and  honesty  to  state  what  his  opponents  and  their  opinions  really 
are,  exaggerating  nothing  to  their  discredit,  keeping  nothing  back  which 
tells,  or  can  be  supposed  to  tell,  in  their  favor.  This  is  the  real  morahty 
of  public  discussion ;  and,  if  often  violated,  I  am  happy  to  think  that  there 
are  many  controversialists  who  to  a  great  extent  observe  it,  and  a  still 
greater  number  who  conscientiously  strive  towards  it. 


THOMAS  HENRY  HUXLEY  75 

THOMAS  HENRY  HUXLEY:   From  " MtsceUaneous  Essays,"  about  1875. 

There  are  in  the  world  a  number  of  extremely  worthy,  well  meaning 
persons,  whose  judgments  and  opinions  are  entitled  to  the  utmost  re- 
spect on  account  of  their  sincerity,  who  are  of  opinion  that  vital  phe- 
nomena, and  especially  all  questions  relating  to  the  origin  of  vital  phe- 
nomena, are  questions  quite  apart  from  the  ordinary  nm  of  inquiry, 
and  are,  by  their  very  nature,  placed  out  of  our  reach.  They  say  that 
all  these  phenomena  originated  miraculously,  or  in  some  way  totally 
different  from  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  and  that  therefore  they 
conceive  it  to  be  futile,  not  to  say  presumptuous,  to  attempt  to  inquire 
into  them. 

To  such  sincere  and  earnest  persons,  I  would  only  say  that  a  question 
of  this  kind  is  not  to  be  shelved  upon  theoretic  or  speculative  grounds. 
You  may  remember  the  story  of  the  Sophist  who  demonstrated  to  Dio- 
genes in  the  most  complete  and  satisfactory  manner  that  he  could  not 
walk;  that  in  fact,  all  motion  was  an  impossibility;  and  that  Diogenes 
refuted  him  by  simply  getting  up  and  walking  round  his  tub.  So,  in 
the  same  way,  the  man  of  science  rephes  to  objections  of  this  kind,  by 
simply  getting  up  and  walking  onward,  and  showing  what  science  has 
done  and  is  doing — by  pointing  to  the  immense  mass  of  facts  which 
have  been  ascertained  and  systematized  under  the  forms  of  the  great 
doctrines  of  Morphology,  of  Development,  of  Distribution,  and  the  like. 
He  sees  an  enormous  mass  of  facts  and  laws  relating  to  organic  beings, 
which  stand  on  the  same  good  sound  foundation  as  every  other  natural 
law.  With  this  mass  of  facts  and  laws  before  us,  therefore,  seeing  that, 
as  far  as  organic  matters  have  hitherto  been  accessible  and  studied,  they 
have  shown  themselves  capable  of  yielding  to  scientific  investigation, 
we  may  accept  this  as  a  proof  that  order  and  law  reign  there  as  well  as  in 
the  rest  of  nature.  The  man  of  science  says  nothing  to  objectors  of  this 
sort,  but  supposes  that  we  can  and  shall  walk  to  a  knowledge  of  organic 
nature,  in  the  same  way  that  we  have  walked  to  a  knowledge  of  the  laws 
and  principles  of  the  inorganic  world. 

But  there  are  objectors  who  say  the  same  from  ignorance  and  ill-will. 
To  such  I  would  reply  that  the  objection  comes  ill  from  them,  and  that 
the  real  presumption — I  may  almost  say,  the  real  blasphemy — in  this 
matter,  is  in  the  attempt  to  Umit  that  inquiry  into  the  causes  of  phenom- 
ena, which  is  the  source  of  all  human  blessings,  and  from  which  has 
sprung  all  human  prosperity  and  progress ;  for,  after  all,  we  can  accom- 
plish comparatively  little.  The  limit  range  of  our  own  faculties  bounds 
us  on  every  side — ^the  field  of  our  powers  of  observation  is  small  enough, 
and  he  who  endeavors  to  narrow  the  sphere  of  our  inquiries  is  only 
pursuing  a  course  that  is  likely  to  produce  the  greatest  harm  to  his 
fellow  men.  .  .  . 


76  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Wherever  bibliolalry  has  prevailed,  bigotry  and  cruelty  have  accom- 
panied it.  It  lies  at  the  root  of  the  deep-seated,  sometimes  disguised, 
but  never  absent,  antagonism  of  all  the  varieties  of  ecclesiasticism  to  the 
freedom  of  thought  and  to  the  spirit  of  scientific  investigation.  To  those 
who  look  upon  ignorance  as  one  of  the  chief  sources  of  evil,  and  hold 
veracity,  not  merely  in  act,  but  in  thought,  to  be  the  one  condition  of 
true  progress,  whether  moral  or  intellectual,  it  is  clear  that  the  biblical 
idol  must  go  the  way  of  all  other  idols.  Of  infallibility  in  all  shapes, 
lay  or  clerical  [as  to  sexual  ethics  or  otherwise],  it  is  needful  to  iterate 
with  more  than  Catonic  pertinacity,  "  Delenda  est." 


HERBERT  SPENCER:  From  "Principles  of  Ethics,'  1879. 

If  we  interpret  the  meaning  of  words  literally,  to  assert  freedom  of 
belief  as  a  right  is  absurd ;  since  by  no  external  power  can  this  be  taken 
away.  Indeed  an  assertion  of  it  involves  a  double  absurdity;  for  while 
behef  cannot  really  be  destroyed  or  changed  by  coercion  from  without, 
it  cannot  really  be  destroyed  or  changed  by  coercion  from  within, 
if  it  is  determined  by  causes  which  lie  beyond  external  control,  and  in 
large  measure  beyond  internal  control.  What  is  meant  is,  of  course^ 
the  right  freely  to  profess  belief. 

That  this  is  a  corollary  from  the  law  of  equal  freedom  scarcely  needs 
saying.  The  profession  of  a  belief  by  any  one,  does  not  of  itself  inter- 
fere with  the  professions  of  other  beliefs  by  others;  and  others,  if  they 
impose  on  any  one  their  professions  of  belief,  manifestly  assume  more 
liberty  of  action  than  he  assumes. 

In  respect  of  these  miscellaneous  beliefs,  which  do  not  concern  in  any 
obvious  way  the  maintenance  of  established  institutions,  freedom  of 
belief  is  not  called  in  question.  Ignoring  exceptions  presented  by  some 
uncivilized  societies,  we  may  say  that  it  is  only  those  beliefs  the  pro- 
fession of  which  seems  at  variance  with  the  existing  social  order,  which 
are  interdicted.  To  be  known  as  one  who  holds  that  the  political  sys- 
tem, or  the  social  organization,  is  not  what  it  ought  to  be,  entails  pen- 
alties in  times  and  places  where  the  militant  type  of  organization  is  un- 
qualified. But  naturally,  where  fundamental  rights  are  habitually 
disregarded,  no  regard  for  a  right  less  conspicuously  important  is  to  be 
expected.  The  fact  that  the  right  of  political  dissent  is  denied  where 
rights  in  general  are  denied,  afiFords  no  reason  for  doubting  that  it  is  a 
direct  deduction  from  the  law  of  equal  freedom. .  .   . 

As  belief,  considered  in  itself  does  not  admit  of  being  controlled  by 
external  power — as  it  is  only  the  profession  of  belief  which  can  be  taken 
cognizance  of  by  authority  and  permitted,  or  prevented,  it  follows  that 
the  assertion  of  the  right  to  freedom  of  belief  implies  the  right  to  free- 
dom of  speech.     Further,  it  implies  the  right  to  use  speech  for  the 


HERBERT  SPENCER  77 

propagation  of  belief;  seeing  that  each  of  the  propositions  constituting 
an  argument,  or  arguments,  used  to  support  or  enforce  a  belief,  being 
itself  a  belief,  the  right  to  express  it  is  included  with  the  right  to  express 
the  belief  to  be  justified. 

Of  course  the  one  right  like  the  other  is  an  immediate  corollary  from 
the  law  of  equal  freedom.  By  using  speech,  either  for  the  expression 
of  a  belief  or  for  the  maintenance  of  a  belief,  no  one  prevents  any  other 
person  from  doing  the  Uke;  unless,  indeed  by  vociferation  or  persistence 
he  prevents  another  from  being  heard,  in  which  case  he  is  habitually 
recognized  as  unfair,  that  is,  as  breaking  the  law  of  equal  freedom. 

Evidently  with  change  of  terms,  the  same  things  may  be  said  con- 
cerning the  right  of  publication — "  the  liberty  of  unlicensed  printing." 
In  respect  of  their  ethical  relations,  there  exists  no  essential  difference 
between  the  act  of  speaking  and  the  act  of  symbolizing  speech  by 
writing,  or  the  act  of  multiplying  copies  of  tliat  which  has  been 
written.  .  .  . 

It  is  said  that  a  government  ought  to  guarantee  its  subjects  "security 
and  a  sense  of  security " ;  whence  it  is  inferred  that  magistrates  ought 
to  keep  ears  open  to  the  declamations  of  popular  orators,  and  stop  such 
as  are  calculated  to  create  alarm.  This  inference,  however,  is  met  by 
the  difl5.culty  that  since  every  considerable  change,  political  or  reli- 
gious, is,  when  first  urged,  dreaded  by  the  majority,  and  thus  diminishes 
their  sense  of  security,  the  advocacy  of  it  should  be  prevented.  There 
were  multitudes  of  people  who  suffered  chronic  alarm  during  the  Reform 
Bill  agitation ;  and  had  the  prevention  of  that  alarm  been  imperative, 
the  implication  is  that  the  agitation  ought  to  have  been  suppressed.  So, 
too,  great  numbers  who  were  moved  by  the  terrible  forecasts  of  The 
Standard  and  the  melancholy  waihngs  of  The  Herald,  would  fain  have 
put  down  the  free-trade  propaganda;  and  had  it  been  requisite  to  main- 
tain their  sense  of  security  they  should  have  had  their  way.  And  simi- 
larly, with  removal  of  Catholic  disabihties.  Prophecies  were  rife  of  the 
return  of  papal  persecutions  with  all  their  horrors.  Hence  the  speaking 
and  writing  which  brought  about  the  change  ought  to  have  been  for- 
bidden, had  the  maintenance  of  a  sense  of  security  been  held  imperative. 

Evidently  such  proposals  to  Umit  the  right  of  free  speech,  poHtical  or 
religious,  can  be  defended  only  by  making  the  tacit  assumption  that 
whatever  political  or  religious  beliefs  are  at  the  time  established,  are 
wholly  true;  and  since  this  tacit  assumption  has  throughout  the  past 
proved  to  be  habitually  erroneous,  regard  for  experience  may  reasonably 
prevent  us  from  assuming  that  the  current  beUefs  are  wholly  true.  We 
must  recognize  free  speech  as  still  being  the  agency  by  which  error  is  to 
be  dissipated,  and  cannot  without  papal  assumption  interdict  it. 

Beyond  the  need,  in  past  time  unquestioned,  for  restraints  on  the 
public  utterance  of  poUtical  and  religious  beliefs  at  variance  with  those 


78  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

established,  there  is  the  need,  still  by  most  people  thought  unquestion- 
able, for  restraining  utterances  which  pass  the  limits  of  what  is  thought 
decency,  or  are  calculated  to  encourage  sexual  immorality.  The  question 
is  a  difficult  one — appears,  indeed,  to  admit  of  no  satisfactory  solution. 
On  the  one  hand,  it  seems  beyond  doubt  that  unlimited  license  of 
speech  on  these  matters  may  have  the  effect  of  undermining  ideas, 
sentiments,  and  institutions  which  are  socially  beneficial ;  for,  whatever 
are  the  defects  in  the  existing  domestic  regime,  we  have  strong  reasons 
for  believing  that  it  is  in  most  respects  good.  If  this  be  so,  it  may  be 
urged  that  publication  of  doctrines  which  tend  to  discredit  this  regime, 
is  undoubtedly  injurious,  and  should  be  prevented.  Yet,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  must  remember  it  was,  in  the  past,  thought  absolutely  certain 
that  the  propagators  of  heretical  opinions  ought  to  be  punished  lest 
they  should  mislead  and  eternally  damn  those  who  heard  them ;  and 
this  fact  suggests  that  there  may  be  danger  in  assuming  too  confidently 
that  our  opinions  concerning  the  relations  of  the  sexes  are  just  what 
they  should  be.  In  all 'times  and  places  people  have  been  positive  that 
their  ideas  and  feelings  on  these  matters,  as  well  as  on  religious  matters, 
were  correct;  and  yet,  assuming  that  we  are  right,  they  must  have  been 
wrong.  Though  here  in  England  we  think  it  clear  that  the  child  mar- 
riages in  India  are  vicious,  yet  most  Hindus  do  not  think  so ;  and  though 
among  ourselves  the  majority  do  not  see  anything  wrong  in  mercantile 
marriages,  yet  there  are  many  who  do.  In  parts  of  Africa  not  only  is 
polygamy  regarded  as  proper  but  monogamy  is  condemned,  even  by 
women ;  while  in  Thibet  polyandry  is  not  only  held  by  the  inhabitants, 
but  it  is  thought  by  travelers  to  be  the  best  arrangement  practicable  in 
their  poverty-stricken  country.  In  the  presence  of  the  multitudinous 
differences  of  opinion  found  even  among  civilized  people,  it  seems  scarcely 
reasonable  to  take  for  granted  that  we  alone  are  above  criticisms  in  our 
conceptions  and  practices;  and  unless  we  do  this,  restraints  on  free 
speech  concerning  the  relations  of  the  sexes  may  possibly  be  hindrances 
to  something  better  and  higher. 

Doubtless  there  must  be  evils  attendant  on  free  speech  in  this  sphere 
as  in  the  political  and  religious  sphere;  but  the  conclusion  above  im- 
plied is  that  the  evils  must  be  tolerated  in  consideration  of  the  possible 
benefit.  Further,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  such  evils  will  always 
be  kept  in  check  by  public  opinion.  The  dread  of  saying  or  writing 
that  which  will  bring  social  ostracism,  proves  in  many  cases  far  more 
effectual  than  does  legal  restriction. 

Though  it  is  superfluous  to  point  out  that,  in  common  with  other 
rights,  the  rights  of  free  speech  and  publication,  in  early  times  and  most 
places  either  denied  or  not  overtly  recognized,  have  gradually  established 
themselves;  yet  some  evidence  may  fitly  be  cited  with  a  view  to  empha- 
sizing this  truth. 


HERBERT  SPENCER  79 

Various  of  the  facts  instanced  in  the  last  chapter  might  be  instanced 
afresh  here;  since  suppression  of  beliefs  has,  by  impHcation,  been  sup- 
pression of  free  speech.  That  the  anger  of  the  Jewish  priests  against 
Jesus  Christ  for  teaching  things  at  variance  with  their  creed  led  to  his 
crucifixion;  that  Paul,  at  first  a  persecutor  of  Christians,  was  himself 
presently  persecuted  for  persuading  men  to  be  Christians;  and  that  by 
sundry  Roman  emperors  preachers  of  Christianity  were  martyred;  are 
familiar  examples  of  the  denials  of  free  speech  in  early  times.  So,  too, 
after  the  Christian  creed  became  established,  the  punishment  of  some 
who  taught  the  non-divinity  of  Christ,  of  others  who  publicly  asserted 
predestination,  and  of  others  who  spread  the  doctrine  of  two  supreme 
principles  of  good  and  evil,  as  well  as  the  persecutions  of  Huss  and 
Luther,  exemplify  in  ways  almost  equally  familiar  the  denial  of  the  right 
to  utter  opinions  contrary  to  those  which  are  authorized.  And  so,  in 
our  countr}%  has  it  been  from  the  time  when  Henr)'  IV.  enacted  severe 
penalties  on  teachers  of  heresy,  down  to  the  seventeenth  century,  when 
the  non-conforming  clergy  were  punished  for  teaching  any  other  than 
the  church  doctrine  and  Bunyan  was  imprisoned  for  open-air  preaching 
— down,  further,  to  the  last  trial  for  propagating  atheism  which  is  within 
our  own  recollection.  But  gradually,  during  recent  centuries,  the  right 
of  free  speech  on  religious  matters,  more  and  more  asserted,  has  been 
more  and  more  admitted;  until  now  there  is  no  restraint  on  the  public 
utterance  of  any  religious  opinion,  unless  the  utterance  is  gratuitously 
insulting  in  manner  or  form. 

By  a  parallel  progress  there  has  been  established  that  right  of  free 
speech  on  political  questions  which  in  early  days  was  denied.  Among 
the  Athenians  in  Solon's  time  death  was  inflicted  for  opposition  to  a 
certain  established  policy;  and  among  the  Romans  the  utterance  of 
proscribed  opinions  was  punished  as  treason.  So,  too,  in  England, 
centuries  ago,  political  criticism,  even  of  a  moderate  kind,  brought 
severe  penalties.  Later  times  have  witnessed,  now  greater  liberty  of 
speech  and  now  greater  control — the  noticeable  fact  being  that  during 
the  war-period  brought  on  by  the  French  Revolution,  there  was  a 
retrogade  movement  in  respect  of  this  right,  as  in  respect  of  other  rights. 
A  judge,  in  1808,  declared  that "  It  was  not  to  be  permitted  to  any  man 
to  make  the  people  dissatisfied  with  the  government  under  which  he 
lives."  But  with  the  commencement  of  the  long  peace  there  b^an  a 
decrease  of  the  restraints  on  political  speech,  as  of  other  restraints  on 
freedom.  Though  Sir  F.  Burdett  was  imprisoned  for  condemning  the 
inhuman  acts  of  the  troops,  and  Leigh  Hunt  for  conunenting  on  excess- 
ive flogging  in  the  army,  since  that  time  there  have  practically  disap- 
peared all  impediments  to  the  public  expression  of  political  ideas.  So 
long  as  he  does  not  suggest  the  commision  of  crimes,  each  citizen  is  free 
to  say  what  he  pleases  about  any  or  all  of  our  institutions — even  to 


80  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

the  advocacy  of  a  fortn  of  government  utterly  different  from  that  which 
exists,  or  the  condemnation  of  all  governments. 

And  here,  indeed,  we  see  again  how  direct  is  the  connection  between 
international  hostilities  and  the  repression  of  individual  freedom.  For 
it  is  manifest  that  throughout  civilization  the  repression  of  freedom  of 
speech  and  freedom  of  publication,  has  been  rigorous  in  proportion  as 
militancy  has  been  predominant;  and  that  at  the  present  time,  in  such 
contrasts  as  that  between  Russia  and  England,  we  still  observe  the 
relation. 


OEORGE  JACOB  HOLYOAKE:  From  "Sixty  Years  of  An  Agitator's  Life"  1899. 

Every  newspaper  proprietor  was  formerly  treated  as  a  blasphemer 
and  a  writer  of  sedition,  and  compelled  to  give  substantial  securities 
against  the  exercise  of  his  infamous  tendencies;  every  paper-maker 
was  regarded  as  a  thief,  and  the  officers  of  the  Excise  dogged  every  step 
of  his  business  with  hampering,  exacting,  and  humiliating  suspicion. 
Every  reader  found  with  an  unstamped  paper  in  his  possession  was 
liable  to  a  fine  of  20  pounds.  When  the  writer  of  this  published  the 
War  Chronicles  and  War  Fly  Sheets  the  Inland  Revenue  Office  bought 
six  copies  as  soon  as  each  number  was  out;  thus  he  incurred  fines  of  120 
pounds  before  breakfast,  and  when  the  last  warrant  was  issued  against 
him  by  the  Court  of  Exchequer  he  was  indebted  to  the  Crown  600,000 
pounds.  Besides,  he  had  issued  an  average  of  2,000  copies  of  The  Rea- 
soner  for  twelve  years,  incurring  fines  of  40,000  pounds  a  week,  which 
amounted  to  a  considerable  sum  in  twelve  years.  He  who  published  a 
paper  containing  news,  without  a  stamp,  was  also  liable  to  have  all  his 
presses  broken  up,  all  his  stock  confiscated,  himself,  and  all  persons  in 
his  house,  imprisoned,  as  had  been  done  again  and  again  to  others  within 
the  writer's  knowledge.  Neither  cheap  newspapers  nor  cheap  books 
could  exist  while  these  perils  were  possible.  ... 

In  the  days  of  Bentham,  and  long  after,  there  was  such  ignorant  preju- 
dice against  dissection  that "  subjects"  could  not  be  obtained  for  the  uses 
of  surgical  science.  This  could  be  overcome  only  by  gentlemen  leaving 
their  bodies  for  dissection.  Jeremy  Bentham,  Richard  Carlile,  and 
other  distinguished  Freethinkers  ordered  their  bodies  to  be  given  for  that 
purpose.  Harriet  Martineau  gave  similar  directions  with  regard  to  her 
remains.  There  is  no  instance  of  any  distinguished  Christian  who  did 
this.  This  generous  and  courageous  devotion  to  science,  though  cred- 
itable to  Freethinkers,  was  a  great  disadvantage  to  their  cause,  and  in- 
creased the  puljlic  prejudice  against  them.  .  .  . 


W.   H.  H.  LECKY  '  gl 

The  enlargement  of  freedom  has  always  been  due  to  heretics  who 
have  been  unrequited  during  their  day  and  defamed  when  dead.  No 
[other]  pubHsher  in  any  country  ever  incurred  so  much  peril  to  free  the 
press  as  Richard  Carlile.  Every  British  bookseller  has  profited  by  his 
intrepidity  and  endurance.  Speculations  of  philosophy  and  science, 
which  are  now  part  of  the  common  intelligence,  power  and  profit,  would 
have  been  stifled  to  this  day  but  for  him. 

Persecutions  sometimes  incite  sensationaUsm,  which  is  then  held  as 
justifying  persecution  to  put  it  down.  If  those  assailed  contented  them- 
selves with  simply  maintaining  what  was  [really]  prohibited,  just  as  though 
the  prohibition  was  not,  persecution  would  be  equally  defeated,  right 
would  be  equally  vindicated,  and  persecution  afforded  no  pretext  for 
recommending  itself.  The  harm  of  ostentatious  defiance  by  a  minority 
is  that  power  is  irritated  and  becomes  more  vindictive  and  intimidating. 
Those  who  show  the  greatest  daring  are  themselves  commonly  ruined. 
If  their  courage  sustains  them,  and  they  do  not  repine  themselves,  their 
families  spread  warnings  and  dismay  by  telling  the  story  of  the  disad- 
vantages brought  upon  them.  Then  many  who  could  afford  to  resist 
are  alarmed,  and  do  nothing.  The  hero  of  extreme  defiance  often  goes 
to  the  other  extreme  himself,  and,  after  keeping  no  terms  with  the  church, 
ends  in  taking  a  pew  in  it  and  being  as  ostentatious  in  supporting  as  he 
was  in  defying  it,  without  the  justification  of  believing  it.  The  clergy 
do  not  know  their  own  business  when  they  keep  what  they  call  "  blas- 
phemy laws"  on  the  statute  books,  since  they  repress  extremes  by  which 
they  can  always  profit. 


W.  H.  H.  LECKY:  From  "A  History  of  Rationalism,"  1900. 

If  persecution  is  unnecessary  in  the  defence  of  truth,  it  has  a  fearful 
efficacy  in  preventing  men  from  discovering  it;  and  when  it  is  so  em- 
ployed, as  infalUbihty  does  not  exist  among  mankind,  no  man  can  as- 
suredly decide.  For  truth  is  scattered  far  and  wide  in  small  portions 
among  mankind,  mingled  in  every  system  with  the  dross  of  error,  grasped 
perfectly  by  no  one,  and  only  in  some  degree  discovered  by  the  careful 
comparison  and  collation  of  opposing  systems.  To  crush  some  of  these 
systems,  to  stifle  the  voice  of  argument,  to  ban  and  proscribe  the  press, 
or  to  compel  it  to  utter  only  the  sentiments  of  a  single  sect,  is  to  destroy 
the  only  means  we  possess  of  arriving  at  truth;  and  as  the  difficulty  of 
avoiding  error  is,  under  the  most  favourable  circumstances,  very  great, 
it  may  be  presumed  that  the  doctrines  which  it  is  necessary  to  hold  are 
but  few,  and  where  the  error  is  not  fundamental,  it  should  not  be  sup- 
pressed by  law. 

The  question.  What  is  truth  ?  has  certainly  no  prospect  of  obtaining 


82  '  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

a  speedy  answer;  but  the  question,  What  is  the  spirit  of  truth  ?  may  be 
discussed  with  much  greater  prospect  of  agreement.  By  the  spirit  of 
truth,  I  mean  that  frame  of  mind  in  which  men  who  acknowledge  their 
own  faUibiUty,  and  who  desire  above  all  things  to  discover  what  is  true, 
should  adjudicate  between  conflicting  arguments.  As  soon  as  they 
have  distinctly  perceived  that  reason,  that  reason  alone,  should  deter- 
mine their  opinions,  that  they  never  can  be  legitimately  certain  of  the 
truth  of  what  they  have  been  taught  till  they  have  both  examined  its 
evidence  and  heard  what  can  be  said  against  it,  and  that  any  influence 
that  introduces  a  bias  of  the  will,  is  necessarily  an  impediment  to  en- 
quiry, the  whole  theory  of  persecution  falls  at  once  to  the  ground.  For 
the  object  of  the  persecutor  is  to  suppress  one  portion  of  the  element  of 
discussion;  it  is  to  determine  the  judgment  by  an  influence  other  than 
reason;  it  is  to  prevent  that  freedom  of  enquiry  which  is  the  sole  method 
we  possess  of  arriving  at  truth.  The  persecutor  never  can  be  certain 
that  he  is  not  persecuting  truth  rather  than  error,  but  he  may  be  quite 
certain  that  he  is  suppressing  the  spirit  of  truth.  .  .  .  Until  the  seven- 
teenth century,  every  mental  disposition  which  philosophy  pronounces 
to  be  essential  to  a  legitimate  research  was  almost  uniformly  branded 
as  a  sin,  and  a  large  proportion  of  the  most  deadly  intellectual  vices 
were  deliberately  inculcated  as  virtues.  It  was  a  sin  to  doubt  the  opin- 
ions which  had  been  instilled  in  childhood  before  they  had  been  exam- 
ined; il  was  a  virtue  to  hold  them  with  unwavering,  unreasoning  cre- 
dulity. It  was  a  sin  to  notice  and  develop  to  its  full  consequences  every 
objection  to  these  opinions ;  it  was  a  virtue  to  stifle  every  objection  as  a 
suggestion  of  the  devil.  It  was  sinful  to  study  with  equal  attention  and 
with  an  indifferent  mind  the  writings  on  both  sides,  sinful  to  resolve  to 
follow  the  Ught  of  evidence  wherever  it  might  lead,  sinful  to  remain 
poised  in  doubt  between  conflicting  opinions,  sinful  to  give  only  a  quali- 
fied assent  to  indecisive  arguments,  sinful  even  to  recognize  the  moral 
or  intellectual  excellence  of  opponents.  In  a  word,  there  is  scarcely  a 
disposition  that  marks  the  love  of  abstract  truth  and  scarcely  a  rule  which 
reason  teaches  as  essential  for  its  attainment,  that  theologians  did  not, 
for  centuries,  stigmatize  as  offensive  to  the  Almighty.  By  destroying 
every  book  that  could  generate  discussion,  by  diffusing  through  every 
field  of  knowledge  a  spirit  of  boundless  creduhty,  and,  above  all,  by  per- 
secuting with  atrocious  cruelty  those  who  differed  from  their  opinions, 
they  succeeded  for  a  long  period  in  almost  arresting  the  action  of  the 
European  mind,  and  in  persuading  men  that  a  critical,  impartial,  and 
enquiring  spirit  was  the  worst  form  of  vice.  From  this  frightful  con- 
dition Europe  was  at  last  rescued  by  the  intellectual  influences  that 
produced  the  Reformation,  by  the  teaching  of  those  great  philosophers 
who  clearly  laid  down  the  conditions  of  enquiry,  and  by  those  bold  in- 
novators who,  with  the  stake  of  Bruno  and  Vanini  before  their  eyes, 


W.  H.  H.  LECKY  83 

dared  to  challenge  directly  the  doctrines  of  the  past.  By  those  means 
the  spirit  of  philosophy  or  of  truth  became  prominent,  and  the  spirit  of 
dogmatism,  with  all  its  consequences,  was  proportionately  weakened.  As 
long  as  the  latter  spirit  possessed  an  indisputable  ascendency,  persecu- 
tion was  ruthless,  universal,  and  unquestioned.  When  the  former  spirit 
became  more  powerful,  the  language  of  anathema  grew  less  peremptory. 
Exceptions  and  qualifications  were  introduced;  the  full  meaning  of  the 
words  was  no  longer  realized;  persecution  became  languid;  it  changed 
its  character;  it  exhibited  itself  rather  in  a  general  tendency  than  in 
overt  acts;  it  grew  apologetical,  timid,  and  evasive.  In  one  age  the 
persecutor  burnt  the  heretic;  in  another,  he  crushed  him  with  penal 
laws;  in  a  third,  he  withheld  from  him  places  of  emolument  and  dignity; 
in  a  fourth,  he  subjected  him  to  the  excommunication  of  society.  Each 
stage  of  advancing  toleration  marks  a  stage  of  the  decline  of  the  spirit 
of  dogmatism  and  of  the  increase  of  the  spirit  of  truth. 

On  the  other  hand,  men  who  have  been  deeply  imbued  with  the  spirit 
of  earnest  and  impartial  enquiry,  will  invariably  come  to  value  such  a 
disposition  more  than  any  particular  doctrines  to  which  it  may  lead 
them;  they  will  deny  the  necessity  of  correct  opinions;  they  will  place 
the  moral  far  above  the  dogmatic  side  of  their  faith ;  they  will  give  free 
scope  to  every  criticism  that  restricts  their  belief;  and  they  will  value 
men  according  to  their  acts,  and  not  at  all  according  to  their  opinions. 
The  first  of  these  tendencies  is  essentially  Roman  Catholic.  The  second 
is  essentially  rationalistic.  .  .  . 

Sooner  or  later  the  spirit  of  truth  will  be  regarded  in  Christendom, 
as  it  was  regarded  by  the  philosophers  of  ancient  Greece,  as  the  loftiest 
form  of  virtue.  We  are  indeed  still  far  from  that  point.  A  love  of  truth 
that  seriously  resolves  to  spare  no  prejudice  and  accord  no  favor,  that 
prides  itself  on  basing  every  conclusion  on  reason  or  conscience,  and  on 
rejecting  every  illegitimate  influence,  is  not  common  in  one  sex,  is  al- 
most unknown  in  the  other,  and  is  very  far  indeed  from  being  the  actu- 
ating spirit  in  all  who  boast  most  loudly  of  their  freedom  from  prejudice. 
Still  it  is  to  this  that  we  are  steadily  approximating. 

If  our  private  judgment  is  the  sole  rule  by  which  we  should  form  our 
opinions,  it  is  obviously  the  duty  of  the  educator  to  render  that  judgment 
as  powerful  and  at  the  same  time  to  preserve  it  as  unbiased,  as  possible. 
To  impose  an  elaborate  system  of  prejudices  on  the  yet  undeveloped 
mind,  and  to  entwine  those  prejudices  with  all  the  most  hallowed  asso- 
ciations of  childhood,  is  most  certainly  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  doc- 
trine of  private  judgment.  A  prejudice  may  be  true  or  false;  but  as 
private  judgment  is  to  decide  between  opinions,  it  is,  as  far  as  that  judg- 
ment is  concerned,  necessarily  an  evil  and  especially  when  it  appeals 
strongly  to  the  affections.  The  sole  object  of  man  is  not  to  search  for 
truth ;  and  it  may  be,  and  undoubtedly  often  is,  necessary  for  other  pur- 


84  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

poses  to  instill  into  the  mind  of  the  child  certain  opinions,  which  he  will 
have  hereafter  to  reconsider.  Yet  still  it  is  manifest  that  those  who  ap- 
preciate this  doctrine  of  private  judgment  as  I  have  described  it,  will 
desire  that  those  opinions  should  be  few,  that  they  should  rest  as  lightly 
as  possible  upon  the  mind,  and  should  be  separated  as  far  as  possible 
from  the  eternal  principles  of  moraUty. 

The  fable  of  the  ancient  Cebes  is  still  true.  The  woman  even  now 
sits  at  the  portal  of  Ufe,  presenting  a  cup  to  all  who  enter  in,  which  dif- 
fuses through  every  vein  a  poison  that  will  cHng  to  them  forever.  The 
judgment  may  pierce  the  clouds  of  prejudice;  in  the  moments  of  her 
strength  she  may  even  rejoice  and  triumph  in  her  Uberty;  yet  the  con- 
ceptions of  childhood  will  long  remain  latent  in  the  mind,  to  reappear 
in  every  hour  of  weakness,  when  the  tension  of  the  reason  is  relaxed,  and 
when  the  power  of  old  association  is  supreme.  It  is  not  surprising  that  very 
few  should  possess  the  courage  and  the  perseverence  to  encounter  the  mental 
struggle.  The  immense  majority  either  never  examine  the  opinions  they 
have  inherited,  or  examine  them  so  completely  under  the  dominating  influ- 
ence of  the  prejudice  of  education,  that  whatever  may  have  been  the  doc- 
trines they  have  been  taught,  they  conclude  that  they  are  so  unquestion- 
ably true  that  nothing  but  a  judicial  bUndness  can  cause  their  rejection. 
Of  the  few  who  have  obtained  a  gUmpse  of  higher  things,  a  large  pro- 
portion cannot  endure  the  conflict  to  which  old  associations  and,  above 
all,  the  old  doctrine  of  the  guilt  of  error,  lends  such  a  pecuUar  bitterness ; 
they  stifle  the  voice  of  reason,  they  turn  away  from  the  path  of  knowl- 
edge, they  purchase  peace  at  the  expense  of  truth.  This  is,  indeed,  in 
our  day,  the  most  fatal  of  all  the  obstacles  to  enquiry.  .  .  .  There  is  a 
period  in  the  history  of  the  enquirer  when  old  opinions  have  been  shaken 
or  destroyed,  and  new  opinions  have  not  yet  been  formed;  a  period  of 
doubt,  of  terror,  and  of  darkness,  when  the  voice  of  the  dogmatist  has 
not  lost  its  power,  and  the  phantoms  of  the  past  still  hover  over  the  mind ; 
a  period  when  every  landmark  is  lost  to  sight,  and  every  star  is  veiled, 
and  the  soul  seems  drifting  helpless  and  rudderless  before  the  destroying 
blast.  It  is  in  this  season  of  transition  that  the  temptation  to  stifle  reason 
possesses  a  fearful  power.  It  is  when  contrasting  the  tranquility  of  past 
assurance  with  the  feverish  paroxysms  that  accompany  enquiry,  that 
the  mind  is  most  Ukely  to  abandon  the  path  of  truth.  It  is  so  much 
easier  to  assume  than  to  prove ;  it  is  so  much  less  painful  to  believe  than 
to  doubt ;  there  is  such  a  charm  in  the  repose  of  prejudice,  when  no  dis- 
cordant voice  jars  upon  the  harmony  of  belief;  there  is  such  a  thrilUng 
pang  when  cherished  dreams  are  scattered,  and  old  creeds  abandoned, 
that  it  is  not  surprising  that  men  should  close  their  eyes  to  the  unwelcome 
light.  Hence  the  tenacity  exhibited  by  systems  that  have  long  since 
been  disproved.     Hence  the  oscillation  and  timidity  that  characterize 


W.  H.  H.  LECKY  85 

the  research  of  most,  and  the  indifference  to  truth  and  the  worship  of 
expediency  that  cloud  the  fair  promise  of  not  a  few. 

He  who,  beUeving  that  the  search  for  truth  can  never  be  offensive  to 
the  God  of  truth,  pursues  his  way  with  an  unswerving  energy,  may  not 
unreasonably  hope  that  he  may  assist  others  in  their  struggle  towards 
the  light,  and  may  in  some  small  degree  contribute  to  that  consummation 
when  the  professed  belief  shall  have  been  adjusted  to  the  requirements 
of  the  age,  when  the  old  tyranny  shall  have  been  broken,  and  the  anarchy 
of  transition  shall  have  passed  away. 

The  pressure  of  the  general  intellectual  influences  of  the  time  deter- 
mines the  predispositions  which  ultimately  regulate  the  details  of  belief; 
and  though  all  men  do  not  yield  to  that  pressure  with  the  same  facility, 
all  large  bodies  are  at  last  controlled.  A  change  of  speculative  opinion 
does  not  imply  an  increase  of  the  data  upon  which  those  opinions  rest, 
but  a  change  of  the  habits  of  thought  and  mind  which  they  reflect.  Defi- 
nite arguments  are  the  symptoms  and  pretexts,  but  seldom  the  causes  of 
change. 


SECTION    III. 

LACONICS    OF    TOLERATION    AND 
FREE    INQUIRY 


Freethinking  pioneers  all  reforms. — Rahel. 

The  liberty  of  the  press  is  a  blessing. — Johnson. 

Freethinking  leads  to  free  inquiry. — ^Abner  Kneeland. 

The  freedom  of  the  press  should  be  inviolate. — J.  Q.  Adams. 

The  people  should  be  masters  of  the  press,  not  its  servant. — ^Wat- 
terson. 

The  man  who  will  not  investigate  both  sides  of  a  question  is  dishonest. 
— Lincoln. 

The  press  is  the  royal  seat  on  which  knowledge  is  sovereign. — ^J.  H. 
Hammond. 

The  liberty  of  the  press  is  essential  to  a  free  government. — Sir  W. 
Blacks  tone. 

I  believe  rather  in  drawing  men  toward  good  than  shutting  them  out 
from  bad. — Zola. 

The  freethinker  should  be  the  free  speaker  and  the  free  actor. — Mrs. 
Mary  E.  Tillotson. 

The  liberty  of  the  press  is  the  highest  safeguard  to  all  free  govern- 
ment.— E,  D.  Baker, 

If  I  have  spoken  evil,  bear  witness  of  the  evil ;  but  if  well,  why  smitest 
thou  me  ?— John,  18:23. 

Thought  cannot  be  too  free;  be  a  freethinker,  not  in  name,  but  in 
reality. — C.  P.  Bronson. 

A  freethinker  is  a  man  who  says,  "  I  will  find  out  what  is  truth,  and 
defend  it."— H.  L.  Green. 

The  Liberty  of  the  Press — ^it  is  as  the  air  we  breathe;  if  we  have  it  not, 
we  die. — Old  Political  Toast. 

Many  a  keen,  capable,  alert  freethinker  does  not  dare  speak  a  word 
of  his  real  opinions. — Iceland. 

Freedom  of  speech  produces  excellent  writers,  and  encourages  men 
of  fine  genius, — P,  L.  Gordon, 

In  all  periods  of  human  development,  freethinking  has  been  painted 
as  a  crime. — Matilda  J.  Gage. 

The  press  is  the  mistress  of  intelligence,  and  intelligence  is  mistress 
of  the  world. — Benjamin  Constant. 

86. 


LACONICS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY  87 

No  law  shall  be  enacted  to  restrain  the  liberty  of  speech  or  of  the  press. 
— Kamehameha  V.  (King  of  Hawaii). 

The  freethinker  loves  liberty  of  thought  and  expression,  for  it  brings 
fact  and  truth  to  the  front. — T.  L.  Brown. 

Let  us  guard  the  liberty  of  the  press  as  watchfully  as  the  dragon  did 
the  Hesperian  fruit. — Lord  Loughborough. 

The  Reformation  was  cradled  in  the  printing-press,  and  established 
by  no  other  instrument. — Agnes  Strickland. 

Man  has  a  right  to  think  all  things,  speak  all  things,  write  all  things, 
but  not  to  impose  his  opinions. — MachiavelU. 

Do  not  talk  about  disgrace  from  a  thing  being  known  when  the  dis- 
grace is  that  the  thing  should  exist. — Falconer. 

He  that  will  not  reason  is  a  bigot;  he  that  cannot  reason  is  a  fool;  he 
that  dares  not  reason  is  a  slave. — Sir  William  Drummond. 

The  freedom  of  the  press  is  one  of  the  bulwarks  of  liberty,  and  can 
never  be  restrained  but  by  despotic  governments. — G.  Mason. 

The  want  of  liberty  is  witnessed  in  hushe<l  voices  and  low  whisper- 
ings; liberty  bursts  into  unshackled  eloquence. — Miss  Lucy  Barton. 

It  is  an  evil  when  the  guardianship  of  virtue  devolves  upon  well- 
meaning  dullness,  which  makes  it  ridiculous. — Parton's  "  Voltaire." 

Great  men  are  placed  upon  the  scaffold  for  their  peccadillos,  and  little 
men  are  often  enthroned  for  serviUty  or  good  intentions. — Wm.  T. 
Hughes. 

If  there  is  anything  in  the  universe  that  can  't  stand  discussion,  let  it 
crack. — ^Wendell  Phillips,  in  Carlos  Martyn's  biography  of  him.  Quo- 
ted from  memory. 

Bishop  Burnett  said  he  had  long  looked  on  liberty  of  conscience  as 
one  of  the  rights  of  human  nature  antecedent  to  society. — "Hist. 
Own  Time,"  p.  216. 

Let  it  be  impressed  upon  your  minds,  let  it  be  instilled  in  your  children, 
that  the  liberty  of  the  press  is  the  palladium  of  all  the  civil,  political,  and 
religious  rights. — ^Junius. 

To  ai^e  against  any  breach  of  Liberty  from  the  ill  use  that  may  be 
made  of  it,  is  to  argue  against  liberty  itself,  since  all  is  capable  of  being 
abused. — Lord  Lyttleton. 

The  country  must  look  mainly  to  the  press  for  the  reform  of  evils,  the 
correction  of  abuses,  and  the  preservation,  in  an  endurable  shape,  of 
free  institutions. — H.  J.  Raymond. 

All  truth  is  safe,  and  nothing  else  is  safe;  and  he  who  keeps  back  the 
truth  or  withholds  it  from  men,  from  motives  of  expediency,  is  either  a 
coward  or  a  criminal,  or  both. — Max  Miiller. 

The  persecuting  spirit  has  its  origin  morally  in  the  disposition  of  man 
to  domineer  over  his  fellow  creatures ;  intellediuilly,  in  the  assumption 
that  one's  own  opinions  are  infallibly  correct. — John  Fiske. 


88  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

There  are  no  privileges  of  the  press  that  are  not  the  privileges  of  the 
people;  any  citizen  has  the  right  to  tell  the  truth,  speak  it,  or  write  it, 
for  his  own  advantage,  and  the  general  welfare. — Murat  Halstead. 

It  is  well  to  consider  a  little  whether  in  our  zeal  to  suppress  one  form 
of  immorality,  we  may  not  be  forging  chains  which  in  time  may  be 
fastened  upon  the  neck  of  some  great  but  unpopular  truth. — Loring 
Moody. 

Let  the  history  of  our  practice  of  book-burning  serve  to  help  us  to  keep 
our  minds  open  with  regard  to  anomalies  which  may  still  exist  among  us, 
descended  from  as  suspicious  an  origin,  and  as  little  supported  by  reason. 
— Farrar. 

Take  away  the  hberty  of  the  press,  and  we  are,  all  at  once,  stripped 
of  the  use  of  our  noblest  faculties ;  our  souls  themselves  are  imprisoned 
in  a  dark  dungeon ;  we  may  breathe,  but  we  cannot  be  said  to  hve. — ^J. 
Thomson. 

Reason  is  the  crucible  in  which  is  determined  the  value  of  ideas,  and 
no  one  who  was  ever  truly  great  has  accepted  ideas  which  were  not  tested 
in  the  crucible  of  reason,  or  rejected  those  which  stood  the  test. — R. 
Ward  Hemens. 

Surely  the  individual  who  devotes  his  time  to  fearless  and  unrestricted 
inquiry  into  the  grand  questions  arising  out  of  our  moral  nature,  ought 
rather  to  receive  the  patronage  than  encounter  the  vengeance  of  an  en- 
lightened legislation. — Percy  B.  Shelley. 

Save  good  faith  there  is  no  limit  to  criticism  concerning  a  man's  actions 
or  his  creations.  "God  forbid,"  exclaimed  Baron  Alderson,  "that  you 
should  not  be  allowed  to  comment  on  the  conduct  of  all  mankind,  pro- 
\'ided  you  do  it  justly  and  honorably." — Townshend. 

History  is  full  of  religious  wars ;  but,  we  must  take  care  to  observe,  it 
was  not  the  multipUcity  of  religions  that  produced  these  wars,  it  was  the 
intolerating  spirit  which  animated  that  which  thought  she  had  the  power 
of  governing. — ^Montesquieu,  "  Persian  Letters,"  let.  65. 

The  power  of  free  discussion  is  the  right  of  every  subject  of  this  coun- 
try. It  is  a  right  to  the  fair  exercise  of  which  we  are  indebted  more 
than  to  any  other  that  was  ever  claimed  by  Englishmen.  All  the  bless- 
ings we  at  present  enjoy  might  be  ascribed  to  it. — Lord  Kenyon. 

Upon  public  abuses,  the  press  turns  the  collected  flames  of  its  sun- 
glass, and  scorches  them  to  cinders.  Against  the  countless  wrongs,  the 
injustice  and  oppressions  of  individuals,  it  wages  perpetual  war,  and  is 
a  better  guarantee  against  their  permanence  than  any  institutions  could 
be. — Manton  Marble. 

Let  us  all  seek  truth  as  if  none  of  us  had  possession  of  it.  The  opin- 
ions which  to  this  day  have  governed  the  earth,  produced  by  chance, 
disseminated  in  obscurity,  admitted  without  discussion,  credited  from 


LACONICS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY  s» 

a  love  of  novelty  and  imitation,  have  in  a  manner  clandestinely  usurped 
their  empire. — Volney's  "  Ruins." 

But  I  will  demand  if  that  man  is  not  rather  entitled  to  respect  than 
the  discountenance  of  society,  who,  by  disputing  a  received  doctrine,, 
either  proves  its  falsehood  and  inutility  (thereby  aiming  at  the  abolition 
of  what  is  false  and  useless)  or  gives  to  its  adherents  an  opportunity  to 
estabhsh  its  excellence  and  truth.     Surely  this  can  be  no  crime. — Shelley. 

The  great  truth  has  finally  gone  forth  to  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  that 
man  shall  no  more  render  account  to  man  for  his  belief,  over  which  he 
has  himself  no  control.  Henceforward  nothing  shall  prevail  upon  u& 
to  praise  or  to  blame  any  one  for  that  which  he  can  no  more  change 
than  he  can  the  hue  of  his  skin  or  the  height  of  his  stature. — Lord 
Brougham. 

A  State  is  good,  bad,  or  indifferent  according  to  the  directness  and 
correctness  with  which  it  brings  to  an  expression  the  best  reason  and 
conscience  of  the  people  and  embodies  their  judgment  in  institutions 
and  laws.  The  State  therefore  lives  by  deUberation  and  discussion, 
and  by  tacit  or  overt  expressions  of  the  major  opinion. — Prof.  W.  G» 
Sumner,  of  Yale. 

Of  what  use  is  freedom  of  thought,  if  it  will  not  produce  freedom  of 
action,  which  is  the  sole  end,  how  remote  soever  in  appearance,  of  all 
objections  against  Christianity?  And  therefore  the  freethinkers  con- 
sider it  an  edifice  where  all  the  parts  have  such  a  mutual  dependence  on 
each  other,  that,  if  you  pull  out  one  single  nail,  the  whole  fabric  must 
fall  to  the  ground. — Swift. 

Much  has  been  accomplished ;  more  than  people  are  aware,  so  grad- 
ual has  been  the  advance.  How  noiseless  is  the  growth  of  com !  Watch  it 
night  and  day  for  a  week,  and  you  will  never  see  it  growing;  but  return 
after  two  months,  and  you  will  find  it  all  whitening  for  the  harvest; 
such,  and  so  imperceptible  in  the  stages  of  their  motion,  are  the  victories 
of  the  press. — De  Quincey. 

There  is  tonic  in  the  things  that  men  do  not  love  to  hear;  and  there 
is  damnation  in  the  things  that  wicked  men  love  to  hear.  Free  speech 
is  to  a  great  people  what  winds  are  to  oceans  and  malarial  regions, 
which  waft  away  the  elements  of  disease,  and  bring  new  elements  of 
health;  and  where  free  speech  is  stopped  miasma  is  bred,  and  death 
comes  fast. — Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

The  power  of  communication  of  thoughts  and  opinions  is  the  gift  of 
God,  and  the  freedom  of  it  is  the  source  of  all  science,  the  first  fruits  and 
the  ultimate  happiness  of  society;  and  therefore  it  seems  to  follow  that 
human  laws  ought  not  to  interpose,  nay,  cannot  interpose,  to  prevent 
the  communication  of  sentiments  and  opinions  in  voluntary  assemblies 
of  men. — Lord  Chief  Justice  Eyre,  1794. 

Without  free  speech  no  search  for  truth  is  possible ;  without  free  speech 


90  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

no  discovery  of  tnith  is  useful ;  without  free  speech  progress  is  checked 
and  the  nations  no  longer  march  forward  toward  the  nobler  life  which 
the  future  holds  for  man.  Better  a  thousand  fold  abuse  of  free  speech 
than  denial  of  free  speech.  The  abuse  dies  in  a  day,  but  the  denial 
slays  the  life  of  the  people  and  entombs  the  hope  of  the  race. — Bradlaugh. 

It  is  dangerous  in  any  government  to  say  to  a  nation,  Thou  shall  not 
read.  This  is  now  done  in  Spain,  and  was  formerly  done  under  the  old 
government  of  France,  but  it  served  to  procure  the  downfall  of  the  latter, 
and  is  subverting  that  of  the  former,  and  it  will  have  the  same  tendency 
in  all  countries,  because  Thought,  by  some  means  or  other,  is  got  abroad 
in  the  world,  and  cannot  be  restrained  though  reading  may. — Thomas 
Paine. 

The  press  is  the  steam-engine  of  moral  power,  which,  directed  by  the 
spirit  of  the  age,  will  eventually  crush  imposture,  superstition,  and  tyr- 
anny. The  liberty  of  the  press  is  the  true  measure  of  all  other  liberty, 
for  all  freedom  without  this  must  be  merely  nominal ;  to  stifle  the  nas- 
cent thought  is  a  moral  infanticide,  a  treason  against  human  nature. 
What  can  a  man  call  his  own,  if  his  thought  does  not  belong  to  him  ? — 
Chatfield. 

Thou  canst  not  shape  another's  mind  to  suit  thine  own  body, 

Think  not,  then,  to  be  furnishing  his  brain  with  thy  special  notions. 

Charity  walketh  with  a  high  step,  and  stumbleth  not  at  a  trifle; 

Charity  hath  keen  eyes,  but  the  lashes  half  conceal  them; 

Charity  is  praised  of  all,  and  fear  not  thou  that  praise, 

God  will  not  love  thee  less  because  men  love  thee  more. 

— Martin  Farquhar  Tupper. 
.  .  .  To  subdue  the  unconquerable  mind. 
To  make  one  reason  have  the  same  effect 
Upon  all  apprehensions ;  to  force  this, 
Or  that  man,  just  to  think,  as  thou  and  I  do; 
Impossible !  unless  souls  were  alike 
In  all,  which  differ  now  as  human  faces. 

— Rowe,  "  Tamerlane,"  act  iv. 

What  then  remains?  The  liberty  of  the  press  only — that  sacred 
palladium,  which  no  influence,  no  power,  no  minister,  no  government, 
which  nothing,  but  the  depravity,  or  folly,  or  corruption  of  a  jury,  can 
ever  destroy.  .  .  .  But  the  facts  are  too  recent  in  your  mind  not  to  show 
you  that  the  liberty  of  the  press  and  the  liberty  of  the  people  sink  and 
rise  together;  that  the  liberty  of  speaking  and  the  liberty  of  acting  have 
shared  exactly  the  same  fate. — ^John  B.  Curran. 

While  there  are  bad-hearted  men  in  the  world,  and  those  who  wish  to 
make  falsehood  pass  for  truth,  they  will  ever  discover  themselves  and 
their  counsel,  by  their  impatience  of  contradiction,  their  hatred  of  those 
who  differ  from  them,  their  wish  to  suppress  inquiry,  and  their  bitter 


LACONICS  OF  FREE   INQUIRY  91 

Tesentment,  when  what  they  call  tnith  has  not  been  handled  with  the 

delicacy  and  niceness  which  it  was  never  anything  but  falsehood  that 

required  or  needed. — Taylor's  "Diegesis." 

I  say  discuss  all  and  expose  all — I  am  for  every-  topic  openly; 

I  say  there  can  be  no  safetv  for  These  States  without  innovators — ^with- 

out  free  tongues,  and  ears  willing  to  hear  the  tongues : 
And  I  announce  as  a  glory  of  These  States,  that  they  respectfully  listen 
.to  propositions,  reforms,  fresh  views  and  doctrines,  from  successions 
of  men  and  women. 
Each  age  with  its  own  gro^sih ! — Walt.  Whitman. 

In  spite  of  Herbert  Spencer's  opinion  that  "  belief  cannot  really  be 
destroyed  or  changed  by  coercion  from  without,"  it  remains  incontestably 
true  that  the  capacity  for  thought  is  dependent  upon  exercise,  as  Mill 
has  so  conclusively  shown,  and,  therefore,  the  suppression  of  the  pro- 
fession of  belief,  if  long  continued,  inevitably  tends  to  the  destruction 
of  the  assailed  belief  by  rendering  the  faculties  of  reason  sluggish  and 
ineffective  through  the  non-use  which  is  the  result  of  fear. — EdNnn  C. 
Walker. 

Doubts  have  been  cast  upon  the  ultim&te  success  of  the  press  itself; 
it  may  be,  it  is  said,  the  vehicle  of  truth,  and  it  may  be  the  engine  of  mis- 
representation. Grant  that  the  press  sometimes  misleads  the  people, 
and  betrays  them  to  misjudge  their  true  interest;  it  leads  them  at  least 
to  exercise  their  judgment,  even  if  it  lead  them  to  judge  wrong;  that 
misjudgmenl  is  but  a  slight  loss  in  comparison  with  the  immense  boon 
of  having  led  them  to  use  their  judgments  and  their  minds  at  all. — G. 
W.  Bumap. 

Our  Yankee  cousins  stamped  out  slavery;  one  day  they  will  unlock 
the  gate  and  disimprison  Liberty.  All  books  of  any  note  have  been 
persecuted.  The"  Age  of  Reason"  was  put  down  by  the  police,  and  men 
gathered  behind  hedges  to  read  by  stealth  copies  they  had  brought  with 
their  united  pence.  If  the  Bible  itself  were,  by  some  magic  turn  of  For- 
tune's wheel,  to  fall  again  under  the  ban,  it  would  be  eageriy  read,  where 
it  is  now  used  in  English  parlor  windows  as  a  convenient  stand  for  the 
flower-pot.  — Carri  ngton . 

There  was  once  a  discussion  between  Mr.  Pitt  and  some  of  his  friends 
on  what  were  the  qualities  most  needed  in  politics.  W^as  it  knowledge, 
patience,  courage,  eloquence,  or  what  was  jt  ?  Mr.  Pitt  said,  "  Patience. 
We  Hberals  have  tried  patience  for  twenty  years.  I  vote  we  now  try 
"  courage."  I  say  again,  don't  let  us  be  afraid  of  our  own  shadows.  We 
have  principles  we  believe  in,  we  have  faith,  we  have  great  traditions, 
and  we  have  a  great  cause  behind  us  and  before  us.  Let  us  not  lose 
courage  and  straightforwardness. — John  Morley. 

Error  of  opinion  may  be  tolerated  where  reason  is  left  free  to  combat 
it. — Jefferson. 


92  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Question  with  boldness  even  the  existence  of  a  God,  for  if  there  be  one. 
he  must  more  approve  the  homage  of  reason  than  of  blindfold  fear. — 
Ibid. 

The  Ucentiousness  of  the  press  produces  the  same  effect  which  the 
restraint  of  the  press  was  intended  to  do ;  if  the  restraint  prevent  things 
from  being  told,  the  licentiousness  of  the  press  prevents  things  from 
being  believed  when  they  are  told. — Ibid. 

It  is  obvious,  there  is  no  certain  and  universal  rule  for  determining 
a  priori,  whether  an  opinion  be  useful  or  pernicious;  and  that  if  any 
person  be  authorized  to  decide  unfettered  by  such  a  rule,  that  person  is 
a  despot.  To  decide  what  opinions  shall  be  permitted,  and  what  pro- 
hibited, is  to  choose  opinions  for  the  people,  since  they  cannot  adopt 
opinions  which  are  not  suffered  to  be  presented  to  their  minds.  Who- 
ever chooses  opinions  for  the  people,  possesses  absolute  control  of  their 
actions,  and  may  wield  them,  for  his  own  purposes,  with  perfect  security 
— Westminster  Review. 

The  Liberty  of  the  Press  is  the  birthright  of  a  Briton,  and  is  justly 
esteemed  the  firmest  bulwark  of  the  Uberties  of  this  country.  ...  I  re- 
joice that  liberty  will  have  a  resting  place,  a  sure  asylum  in  America, 
from  the  persecution  of  almost  all  the  princes  of  the  earth.  .  .  .  [Under 
the  laws  against  dissenters]  a  Mercenary  informer  or  a  blind  zealot 
may  bring  under  the  lash  of  the  law  men  who  do  honor  to  the 
age  in  which  we  live,  and  the  most  abandoned  of  our  species  have  it  now 
in  their  power  to  prosecute  virtue  and  genius  when  exerted  for  the  benefit 
of  mankind.— John  Wilkes.     From  Rae's  "  Wilkes  S.  and  F." 

Whosoever  designs  the  change  of  rehgion  in  a  country  or  government, 
by  any  other  means  than  that  of  a  general  conversion  of  the  people,  or 
the  greatest  part  of  them,  designs  all  the  mischiefs  to  a  nation  that  use 
to  usher  in  or  attend  the  two  greatest  distempers  of  a  state,  civil  war  or 
tyranny — which  are  violence,  oppression,  cruelty,  rapine,  intemperance,, 
injustice;  and,  in  short,  the  miserable  effusion  of  human  love,  and  the 
confusion  of  laws,  orders,  and  virtues  among  men.  Such  consequences 
as  these,  I  doubt,  are  something  more  than  the  disputed  opinions  of  any 
man,  or  any  particular  assembly  of  men,  can  be  worth. — Sir  William 
Temple,  Vol.  I.,  page  171. 

A  free  press  is  the  parent  of  much  good  in  the  state.  But  even  a  li- 
centious press  is  far  less  evil  than  a  press  that  is  enslaved,  because  both 
sides  may  be  heard  in  the  former  case,  but  not  in  the  latter.  A  Hcentious 
press  may  be  an  evil,  an  enslaved  press  m,iist  be  so ;  for  an  enslaved  press 
may  cause  error  to  be  more  current  than  wisdom,  and  wrong  more  pow- 
erful than  right.  A  licentious  press  cannot  effect  these  things,  for  if  it 
give  the  poison,  it  gives  also  the  antidote,  which  an  enslaved  press  with- 
holds. An  enslaved  press  is  doubly  fatal;  it  not  only  takes  away  the 
true  light,  for  in  that  case  we  might  stand  still,  but  it  sets  up  a  false  one^ 
that  decoys  us  to  our  destruction. — Rev.  C.  C.  Colton. 


LACONICS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY  93 

No  matter  whose  the  lips  that  would  speak,  they  must  be  free  and 
ungagged.  Let  us  believe  that  the  whole  of  truth  can  never  do  harm 
to  the  whole  of  virtue;  and  remember  that  in  order  to  get  the  whole 
of  truth,  you  must  allow  every  man,  right  or  wrong,  freely  to  utter 
his  conscience,  and  protect  him  in  so  doing.  Entire  unshackled  free- 
dom for  every  man's  life,  no  matter  what  his  doctrine — the  safety  of 
free  discussion  no  matter  how  wide  its  range.  The  community  which 
dares  not  protect  its  humblest  and  most  hated  member  in  the  free 
utterance  of  his  opinions,  no  matter  how  false  or  hateful,  is  only  a  gang 
of  slaves. — ^Wendell  Phillips. 

'  I  think  heresy  hunting  one  of  the  most  despicable  pursuits  in  which 
the  human  mind  can  engage,"  says  Dean  Wilford  L.  Robbins  of  the 
General  Theological  Seminary  of  New  York.  The  heresy  hunters  are 
the  true  muck-rakers,  and  there  are  all  sorts  of  them.  The  chiefest  are 
the  hunters  for  heresy  in  reUgion,  and  they  have  their  little  imitators  in 
those  who  hunt  for  heretics  in  morals,  who  are  called  free  lovers;  in 
industry,  who  are  called  scabs ;  in  medicine,  who  are  called  quacks ;  in 
economics,  who  are  called  Anarchists  and  Socialists.  And  progress  in 
church  and  state,  in  morals,  medicine,  industry,  and  so  forth,  is  mostly 
due  to  the  heretics  who  go  against  the  organization. — Truth  Seeker. 

Give  me  but  the  Liberty  of  the  Press,  and  I  will  give  to  the  minister 
a  venal  House  of  Peers — ^I  will  give  him  a  corrupt  and  servile  House  of 
Commons — I  will  give  him  the  full  sway  of  the  patronage  of  office — 
I  will  give  him  the  whole  host  of  ministerial  influence — I  will  give  him 
all  the  power  the  place  can  confer  upon  him  to  purchase  up  submission 
and  overawe  resistance — and  yet,  armed  with  the  Liberty  of  the  Press, 
I  will  go  forth  to  meet  him  undismayed — I  will  attack  the  mighty 
fabric  he  has  reared,  with  that  mightier  engine — I  will  shake  down 
from  its  height  corruption,  and  bury  it  amidst  the  ruins  of  the  abuses  it 
w^  meant  to  shelter. — Sheridan,  15  "Parliamentary  Debates,"  341. 

Men  in  earnest  have  no  time  to  waste  in  patching  fig  leaves  for  the 
naked  truth. — Lowell. 

They  are  slaves  who  fear  to  speak 
For  the  fallen  and  the  weak; 
They  are  slaves  who  will  not  choose 
Hatred,  scoffing,  and  abuse 
Rather  than  in  silence  shrink 
From  the  truth  they  needs  must  think; 
They  are  slaves  who  dare  not  be 
In  the  right  with  two  or  three. 
—Ibid. 


94  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Whatever  else  may  be  intended  by  the  phrase  "  freedom  of  the  press," 
or  "  liberty  of  the  press,"  it  means  the  freedom  or  liberty  of  those  who 
conduct  the  press.  .  .  .  The  liberty  of  the  press  is  connected  with  natu- 
ral liberty.  The  use  and  Hberty  of  speech  were  antecedent  to  Magna 
Charta,  and  printing  is  only  a  more  extensive  and  improved  kind  of 
speech.  The  liberty  of  the  press  therefore,  properly  understood,  is  the 
personal  liberty  of  the  writer  to  express  his  thoughts  in  the  more  im- 
proved way  invented  by  human  ingenuity  in  the  form  of  press.  The 
liberty  of  press  consists  in  the  right  to  publish  with  impunity  truth  with 
good  motives  and  for  justifiable  ends  whether  it  respects  governments, 
magistracy,  or  individuals. — Townshend  on  "  Libel  and  Slander.'' 

Liberty  of  thought  and  speech  have,  after  a  prolonged  struggle,  been 
conceded,  although  there  may  be  found  people  who,  on  their  own  pet 
failings,  even  yet  refuse  to  allow  the  right  unreservedly.  Liberty  of 
speech  is  justified  on  three  grounds :  First,  if  the  opinion  be  true,  the 
world  reaps  a  benefit  to  be  derived  from  the  truth ;  secondly,  if  the  opin- 
ion be  false,  truth  is  the  more  strengthened  by  contest  with  it,  and  lastly, 
if  it  be  partly  true  and  partly  false,  our  opinions,  if  they  do  not  entirely 
lose  their  weakness,  at  any  rate  gain  the  corrections  which  have  greatly 
improved  them.  The  commencement  of  the  struggle  was  due  to  religion, 
and  the  man  who  brought  the  long  fight  to  a  close  and  finally  setled  that 
matter  was  Charles  Bradlaugh. — J.  P.  Poole,  Westminster  Review. 

It  is  apprehended  that  arbitrary  power  would  steal  in  upon  us,  wei^ 
we  not  careful  to  prevent  its  progress,  and  were  there  not  an  easy  method 
of  conveying  the  alarm  from  one  end  of  the  kingdom  to  another.  The 
spirit  of  the  people  must  frequently  be  roused,  in  order  to  curb  the  am- 
bition of  the  court,  and  the  dread  of  rousing  this  spirit  must  be  employed 
to  prevent  that  ambition.  Nothing  [else]  is  so  effectual  to  this  purpose 
as  the  liberty  of  the  press,  by  which  all  the  learning,  wit,  and  the  genius 
of  the  nation  may  be  employed  on  the  side  of  freedom,  and  every  one  be 
apimated  to  its  defence.  As  long,  therefore,  as  the  republican  part  of 
our  government  can  maintain  itself  against  the  monarchical,  it  will 
naturally  be  careful  to  keep  the  press  open,  as  of  importance  to  its  own 
preservation. — Hume,"  Essays,"  Vol.  I.,  page  23. 

Let  it  not  be  recorded  in  our  own  memories,  that  in  this  moment  of 
the  Eternity,  when  we  who  were  named  by  our  names,  flitted  across  the 
light,  we  were  afraid  of  any  fact,  or  disgraced  the  fair  Day  by  a  pusil- 
lanimous preference  of  our  bread  to  our  freedom.  What  is  the  scholar 
what  is  the  man  for  but  for  hospitality  to  every  new  thought  of  his  time  ? 
Have  you  leisure,  power,  property,  friends?  you  shall  be  the  asylum 
and  patron  of  every  new  thought,  every  unproven  opinion,  every  un- 


LACONICS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY  95 

tried  project,  which  proceeds  out  of  good-will  and  honest  seeking.  All 
the  newspapers,  all  the  tongues  of  to-day,  will,  of  course,  at  first  defame 
what  is  noble;  but  you  who  hold  not  of  to-<lay,  not  of  the  times,  but  of 
the  Everlasting,  are  to  stand  for  it;  and  the' highest  compUment  man 
ever  receives  from  Heaven,  is  the  sending  to  him  its  disguised  and  dis- 
credited angels. — Emerson  ( ?). 

To  suffer  the  cixil  magistrate  to  intrude  his  powers  into  the  field  of 
opinion  and  to  restrain  the  profession  or  propagation  of  principles  on 
supposition  of  their  ill  tendency,  is  a  dangerous  fallacy,  which  at  once 
destroys  all  [rehgious]  hberty;  because  he  being,  of  course,  judge  of 
that  tendency;  will  make  his  [falhble]  opinions  the  rule  of  judgment,  and 
approve  or  condemn  the  sentiments  of  others,  only  as  they  shall  square 
with  or  differ  from  his  own.  It  is  time  enough  for  the  rightful  purposes 
of  civil  government  for  its  officers  to  interfere  when  principles  break  out 
into  overt  acts  against  peace  and  good  order.  And,  finally,  that  truth 
is  great  and  will  prevail,  if  left  to  herself.  That  she  is  the  proper  and 
sufficient  antagonist  to  error,  and  has  nothing  to  fear  from  the  conffict 
unless  by  human  interposition  disarmed  of  her  natural  weapon,  free 
argument  and  debate. — ^Act  of  Virginia  estabhshing  Religious  Freedom. 

Persecution  is  unwarrantable  in  any  cause;  yet  it  may  most  naturally 
be  expected  in  favor  of  a  bad  one.  .  .  . 

For,  though  calumny  and  slander,  when  affecting  our  fellow-men, 
are  punishable  by  law;  for  this  plain  reason,  because  an  injur}'  is  done, 
and  a  damage  sustained,  and  a  reparation  therefore  due  to  the  injured 
party;  yet,  this  reason  cannot  hold  where  God  and  the  Redeemer  are 
concerned;  who  can  sustain  no  injury'  from  low  malice  and  scurrilous 
invective;  nor  can  any  reparation  be  made  to  them  by  temporal  penal- 
ties, for  these  can  work  no  conviction  or  repentance  in  the  mind  of  the 
offender;  and  if  he  continue  impenitent  and  incorrigible,  he  will  receive 
his  condign  punishment  in  the  day  of  final  retribution.  Affronting 
Christianity,  therefore,  does  not  come  under  the  magistrate's  cogni- 
zance, in  this  particular  view,  as  it  implies  an  offence  against  God  and 
Christ. — Phillip  Furneaux,  1771. 

I  am  conscious  how  many  wars  heresies  have  occasioned ;  but  was  it 
not  because  we  were  desirous  of  persecuting  heresies  ?  The  man  who 
believes  with  sincerity,  believes  also  with  more  firmness,  when  you 
would  oblige  him  to  change  his  creed,  without  at  the  same  time  convinc- 
ing him,  and  becomes  obstinate;  his  obstinacy  kindles  his  zeal,  his  zeal 
inflames  him.  You  wish  to  make  a  convert;  you  have  made  a  fanatic 
and  a  madman.  !Men  ask  nothing  more  for  their  opinions  than  freedom ; 
if  you  would  lake  it  from  them,  you  put  your  arms  into  their  hands; 


96  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

grant  it  them,  they  will  remain  tranquil,  as  do  the  Lutherans  at  Stras- 
bourgh.  It  is  then  the  unity  of  religion  to  which  we  would  compel  men, 
and  not  the  multiplicity  of  opinions  which  we  tolerate,  that  occasions 
commotions  and  civil  wars.  The  Pagans  tolerated  every  opinion,  the 
Chinese  do  the  same;  Prussia  excludes  no  sect,  Holland  includes  all, 
and  these  nations  have  never  experienced  a  reUgious  war.  England  and 
France  have  wished  to  have  but  one  reUgion,  and  London  and  Paris 
have  seen  the  blood  of  their  inhabitants  flowing  in  streams. — ^Turgot, 
""Le  Conciliateur." 

Dissent,  after  having  long  been  an  unquestionable  crime,  has  ended 
by  becoming  almost  a  cornerstone  of  the  glory  of  our  civilization. — 
James  Patterson. 

Quetelet  said  ("Sur  1'  homme,"  289)  that  the  press  tends  to  deprive 
revolutions  of  their  violence  by  hastening  the  period  of  reaction.  .  .  . 
One  great  advantage  of  a  free  press  is,  that  it  tends  to  disperse  the  dan- 
gers that  culminate  in  sedition.  Bacon  said  that  the  surest  way  to  pre- 
vent sedition,  if  the  times  do  bear  it,  is  to  take  away  the  matter  of  them. 
A  great  writer  has  also  observed,  that  "Violence  exerted  towards  opin- 
ions, which  falls  short  of  extermination,  serves  no  other  purpose  than  to 
render  them  more  known,  and  ultimately  to  increase  the  zeal  and  num- 
ber of  their  abettors.  When  public  discontents  are  allowed  to  vent 
themselves  in  reasoning  and  discourse,  they  subside  into  a  calm;  but 
their  confinement  in  the  bosom  is  apt  to  give  them  a  fierce  and  deadly 
tincture.  The  reason  of  this  is  obvious.  As  men  are  seldom  disposed 
to  complain  till  they  at  least  imagine  themselves  injured,  so  there  is  no 
injury  which  they  will  remember  so  long,  or  resent  so  deeply,  as  that  of 
being  threatened  into  silence." — Ibid. 

For  my  part,  I  am  certain  that  God  hath  given  us  reason  to  discover 
between  truth  and  falsehood,  and  he  that  makes  not  this  use  of  it,  but 
believes  things  he  knows  not  why,  I  say  it  is  chance  that  he  believes  the 
truth  and  not  by  choice,  and  I  cannot  but  fear  that  God  will  not  accept 
this  sacrifice  of  fools. — Chillingsworth. 

But  you  that  would  not  have  men  follow  their  reason,  what  would 
you  have  them  follow  ?  Their  passions,  or  pluck  out  their  eyes,  and  go 
blindfold?  No,  you  say;  you  would  have  them  follow  authority.  In 
God's  name,  let  them;  we  also  would  have  them  follow  authority;  for 
it  is  upon  the  authority  of  universal  tradition  that  we  would  have  them 
believe  Scripture.  But  then,  as  for  the  authority  which  you  would  have 
them  follow,  you  will  let  them  see  reason  why  they  should  follow  it. 
And  is  not  this  to  go  a  little  about — to  leave  reason  for  a  short  term,  and 
then  to  come  to  it  again,  and  to  do  that  which  you  condenm  in  others  ? 
It  being  indeed  a  plain  impossibility  for  any  man  to  submit  his  reason 


LACONICS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY  97 

but  to  reason ;  for  he  that  doth  it  to  authority,  must  of  necessity  think 
himself  to  have  greater  reason  to  believe  that  authority. — Rev.  William 
Chillings  worth. 

Experience  teaches  that  the  sword,  the  faggot,  exile,  and  proscriptions 
are  better  calculated  to  irritate  than  to  heal  a  disease,  which,  having  its 
source  in  the  mind,  cannot  be  relieved  by  remedies  that  act  only  on  the 
body.  The  most  efficacious  means  are  sound  doctrines  and  repeated 
instructions,  which  make  a  ready  impression  when  inculcated  with 
mildness.  Everything  else  bows  to  the  sovereign  authority  of  the 
magistrate  and  the  prince ;  but  religion  alone  is  not  to  be  commanded. 

If  Epicurus,  whose  system  has  been  so  much  decried  by  other  philoso- 
phers, has  said  of  the  sage,  that  if  he  were  shut  up  in  the  brazen  bull  of 
Phalaris,  he  would  not  fail  to  declare :  "  This  fire  affects  me  not,  it  is 
not  I  that  burn  " ;  do  we  imagine  that  less  courage  was  conspicuous  in 
those  who  by  various  torments  were  put  to  death  a  century  ago,  or  that 
less  will  be  displayed  by  future  mart}^^,  if  persecution  be  continued? 
What  was  said  and  done  by  one  of  them,  when  he  was  fastened  to  the 
stake  in  order  to  be  burned,  is  worthy  our  notice.  Being  upon  his  knees, 
he  began  to  sing  a  psalm,  which  the  smoke  and  the  flames  could  scarcely 
interrupt ;  and  as  the  executioner,  for  fear  of  terrifying  him,  lighted  the 
fire  behind,  he  turned  and  said :  "  Come  and  kindle  it  before  me ;  if  fire 
could  have  terrified  me,  I  should  not  be  here ;  it  depended  on  myself  to 
avoid  it."— De  Thou. 

The  Ught  of  knowledge  may  be  painful  to  those  unaccustomed  to  it, 
as  unmodified  sunlight  is  to  the  eyes,  and  many  may  prefer  to  spend  their 
days  in  boudoirs  with  latticed  windows  and  colored  fights,  but  science, 
to  which  we  owe  such  far-reaching  material  and  intellectual  advance- 
ment, the  glory  of  our  generation,  cannot  stop  on  their  account,  and  no 
demand  of  this  sort  has  any  prospect  of  winning  general  approval. 
What  is  it,  then,  that  makes  the  results  of  modem  investigation  appear 
dangerous  in  the  eyes  of  so  many  men  ?  Can  the  truth,  as  such,  be 
harmful,  and  therefore  objectionable,  supposing  that  we  had  the  truth, 
and  that  it  opposed  all  traditions  ? 

The  answer  will  be,  no;  but  the  remark  will  be  added  that  the  truth 
is  no  staff  for  halting  souls,  and  that  dazzled  eyes  cannot  endure  it. 
Consequently,  the  harm  lies  not  in  scientific  knowledge,  but  in  the  weak- 
ness of  souls  and  eyes.  Here,  then,  is  where  the  mistake  Ues,  and  where 
rehef  must  be  administered.  It  is  not  the  new  truth  which  threatens 
danger,  but  the  old  error,  in  which  the  human  mind  has  been  kept  so 
long,  and  which  some  would  Uke  to  retain  longer.  The  danger  is  that 
all  our  institutions,  home,  school,  church,  public  life,  social  order,  and 
systems  of  government,  being  based  on  and  adapted  to  these  old  errors, 


98  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

should  fail  to  perceive  that  it  is  their  business  gradually  to  adapt  them- 
selves to  the  better  knowledge.  Only  on  condition  that  they  do  this 
can  the  widening  of  the  chasm  and  the  violent  collapse  of  what  has  be- 
come antiquated  be  avoided. — Dr.  Ernst  Krause,  in  "  Unshackling  of 
the  Spirit  of  Inquiry,"  Open  Court,  1900. 

The  liberty  of  the  press  is  a  very  great  advantage  and  security  to  our 
public  liberty. — Lord  Mansfield. 

What  bloodshed  and  confusion  have  been  occasioned  from  the  reign 
of  Henry  IV.,  when  the  first  penal  statutes  were  enacted,  down  to  the 
Revolutions  in  this  kingdom,  by  laws  made  to  force  conscience!  There 
is  nothing  certainly  more  unreasonable,  more  inconsistent  with  the  rights 
of  human  nature,  more  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  precepts  of  the  Chris- 
tian reUgion,  more  iniquitous  and  unjust,  more  impolitic,  than  persecu- 
tion.    It  is  against  natural  religion,  revealed  religion,  and  sound  policy. 

Sad  experience,  and  a  large  mind,  taught  that  great  man,  the  President 
de  Thou,  this  doctrine.  Let  any  man  read  the  many  admirable  things, 
which,  though  a  papist,  he  hath  dared  to  advance  upon  the  subject,  in 
the  dedication  of  his  history  to  Henry  IV.  of  France  (which  I  never  read 
without  rapture)  and  he  will  be  fully  convinced,  not  only  how  cruel,  but 
how  impolitic,  it  is  to  persecute  for  religious  opinions. 

Make  a  law  to  render  men  incapable  of  offices;  make  another  to 
punish  them  (for  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  the  defendant  in  the 
cause  before  your  lordships  is  prosecutable  for  taking  the  office  upon 
him)  if  they  accept;  if  they  refuse,  punish;  if  they  say  yes, 
punish;  if  they  they  say  no,  punish.  My  lords,  this  is  a  most  exquisite 
dilemma,  from  which  there  is  no  escape;  it  is  a  trap  a  man  cannot  gel 
out  of;  it  is  as  bad  persecution  as  that  of  Procrustes ;  if  they  are  too  short, 
stretch  them ;  if  they  are  too  long,  lop  them. —  Ibid,  in  "  Debates  on  case 
of  Mr.  Evans." 

Civil  governors  go  miserably  out  of  their  proper  province  whenever 
they  take  upon  them  the  care  of  truth,  or  the  support  of  any  doctrinal 
points.  They  are  not  judges  of  truth,  and  if  they  pretend  to  decide 
about  it,  they  will  decide  wrong.  It  is  superstition,  idolatry,  and  non- 
sense, that  civil  power  at  present  supports  almost  everywhere,  under 
the  idea  of  supporting  sacred  truth,  and  opposing  dangerous  error. 

All  the  experience  of  past  time  proves  that  the  consequence  of  allow- 
ing civil  power  to  judge  of  the  nature  and  tendency  of  doctrines,  must  be 
making  it  a  hindrance  to  the  progress  of  truth,  and  an  enemy  to  the  im- 
provement of  the  world.  Anaxagoras  was  tried  and  condemned  in 
Greece  for  teaching  that  the  sun  and  stars  were  not  deities,  but  masses 
of  corruptible  matter.  Accusations  of  the  like  kind  contributed  to  the 
death  of  Socrates.     The  threats  of  bigots,  and  the  fear  of  persecution. 


LACONICS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY  99 

prevented  Copernicus  from  publishing,  during  his  lifetime,  his  discovery 
of  the  true  system  of  the  worid.  Galileo  was  obliged  to  renounce  the 
doctrine  of  the  motion  of  the  earth,  and  suffered  a  year's  imprisonment 
for  having  asserted  it.  And  so  lately  as  the  year  1742  the  best  com- 
mentary on  the  first  production  of  human  genius  (Newton's  "  Principia  ") 
was  not  allowed  to  be  printed  at  Rome,  because  it  asserted  this  doctrine; 
and  the  learned  commentators  were  obliged  to  prefix  to  their  work  a 
declaration  that  on  this  point  they  submitted  to  the  decisions  of  the 
supreme  pontiffs.  Such  have  been,  and  such  (while  men  continue  blind 
and  ignorant)  will  always  be  the  consequence  of  the  interposition  of 
civil  governments  in  matters  of  speculation. — Price,  "Imporiance  of 
American  Revolution,"  page  24. 

"English  freedom  does  not  depend  upon  the  executive  government 
nor  upon  the  administration  of  justice,  nor  upon  any  one  particular  or 
distinct  part,  nor  even  upon  forms,  so  much  as  it  does  on  the  general 
freedom  of  speech  and  of  writing.  Speech  ought  to  be  completely  free. 
The  press  ought  to  be  completely  free,  when  any  man  may  write  and 
print  what  he  pleased,  though  he  is  liable  to  be  punished  if  he  abuse 
that  freedom.  This  is  perfect  freedom.  If  this  is  necessary  with  re- 
gard to  the  press,  it  is  still  more  so  with  regard  to  speech.  I  have  never 
heard  of  any  danger  arising  to  a  free  state  from  the  freedom  of  the 
press  or  freedom  of  speech;  so  far  from  it  I  am  perfectly  clear,  that  a 
free  state  cannot  exist  without  both.  It  is  not  the  law  that  is  to  be 
found  in  books  that  constitutes — that  has  constituted,  the  true  principle 
of  freedom  in  any  country  at  any  time.  No,  it  is  the  energy,  the  bold- 
ness of  a  man's  mind  which  prompts  him  to  speak  not  in  private,  but 
in  large  and  popular  assemblies,  that  constitutes,  that  creates  in  a  state 
the  spirit  of  freedom.  This  is  the  principle  that  gives  life  to  liberty; 
without  it  the  human  character  is  a  stranger  to  freedom.  As  a  tree  that 
is  injured  at  the  root,  with  the  bark  taken  off  the  branches,  may  live  for 
a  while,  and  some  sort  of  blossom  may  still  remain,  but  it  will  soon 
wither,  decay,  and  perish,  so  take  away  the  freedom  of  speech  or  of 
writing,  and  the  foundation  of  all  the  freedom  is  gone.  You  will  then 
fall  and  be  degraded  and  despised  by  all  the  world  for  your  weakness 
and  your  folly  in  not  having  taken  care  of  that  which  conducted  you  to  all 
your  fame,  vour  greatness,  your  opulence  and  prosperity. — Rt.  Hon.  C. 
J.  Fox.  (1795),  32  Pari.  Hist.,  419. 

It  is  not  to  the  point  to  say  that  the  views  of  Lucretius  and  Bruno,  of 
Darwin  and  Spencer,  may  be  wrong.  Here  I  should  agree  with  you, 
deeming  it  indeed  certain  that  these  views  will  undergo  modification. 
But  the  point  is,  that  whether  right  or  wrong,  we  claim  the  right  to  dis- 
cuss them.     For  science,  however,  no  exclusive  claim  is  here  made;  you 


100  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

are  not  urged  to  erect  it  into  an  idol.  Tlie  inexorable  advance  of  man's 
understanding  in  the  path  of  knowledge,  and  those  unquenchable  claims 
of  his  moral  and  emotional  nature  which  the  understanding  can  never 
satisfy,  are  here  equally  set  forth.  The  world  embraces  not  only  a 
Newton,  but  a  Shakespeare — not  only  a  Boyle,  but  a  Raphael — not  only 
a  Kant,  but  a  Beethoven — not  only  a  Darwin  but  a  Carlyle.  Not  in 
each  of  these,  but  in  all,  is  human  nature  whole.  They  are  not  opposed, 
but  supplementary — not  only  [not]  mutually  exclusive,  but  reconcilable. 
And  if,  unsatisfied  with  them  all,  the  human  mind,  with  the  yearning  of 
a  pilgrim  for  his  distant  home,  will  still  turn  to  the  mystery  from  which 
it  has  emerged,  seeking  to  fashion  it  as  to  give  unity  to  thought  and  faith; 
so  long  as  this  is  done,  not  only  without  intolerance  or  bigotry  of  any  kind, 
but  with  the  enUghtened  recognition  that  ultimate  fixity  of  con- 
ception is  here  unattainable,  and  that  each  succeeding  age  must  be  held 
free  to  fashion  the  mystery  in  accordance  with  its  own  needs — then, 
casting  aside  all  the  restrictions  of  materiaUsm,  I  would  affirm  this  to 
be  a  field  for  the  noblest  exercise  of  what — in  contrast  with  the  knowing 
faculties — may  be  called  the  creative  faculties  of  man.  Here,  however, 
I  touch  a  theme  too  great  for  me  to  handle,  but  which  will  assuredly  be 
handled  by  the  loftiest  minds  when  you  and  I,  hke  streaks  of  morning 
cloud,  shall  have  been  melted  into  the  infinite  azure  of  the  past. — ^Prof. 
John  Tyndall. 

I  have  learned  from  the  ancient  Fathers  of  the  church,  that  nothing 
is  more  against  rehgion  than  to  force  reUgion,  and  of  St.  Paul,  the  weap- 
ons of  the  Christian  warfare  are  not  carnal.  And  great  reason;  for 
human  violence  may  make  men  counterfeit,  but  cannot  make  them  be- 
lieve, and  is  therefore  fit  for  nothing  but  to  breed  form  without  and 
atheism  within.  Besides,  if  this  means  of  bringing  men  to  embrace 
any  reUgion  were  generally  used — as,  if  it  may  be  justly  used  in  any 
place  by  those  who  have  power,  and  think  they  have  truth,  certainly 
they  cannot  with  reason  deny  that  it  may  be  used  in  every  place  by 
those  that  have  power  as  well  as  they,  and  think  they  have  truth  as  well 
as  they — what  could  follow  but  the  maintenance,  perhaps,  of  truth,  but 
perhaps  only  the  profession  of  it  in  one  place,  and  the  oppression  in  a 
hundred  ?  What  will  follow  from  it  but  the  presentation,  peradventure, 
of  unity,  but,  peradventure,  only  of  uniformity,  in  particular  states  and 
churches;  but  the  immortalizing  the  greater  and  more  lamentable  di- 
visions of  Christendom  and  the  world  ?  And,  therefore,  what  can  fol- 
low from  it,  but  perhaps,  in  the  judgment  of  carnal  policy,  the  temporal 
benefit  and  tranquility  of  temporal  states  and  kingdoms,  but  the  infinite 
rejudice,  if  not  the  desolation,  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  ? 
O  that  our  ecclesiastical  orators  of  every  sect  would  apply  themselves, 
with  all  the  strength  of  argument  in  their  power,  to  the  confounding  of 


LACONICS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY  loi 

men's  errors!  But  let  them  spare  their  persons,  and  not  supply  their 
want  of  reasons  by  instruments  of  force,  which  belong  to  another  juris- 
diction, and  look  ill  in  the  hands  of  churchmen.  I^t  them  not  call  the 
magistrate's  authority  to  aid  their  eloquence,  or  learning;  lest,  perhaps, 
while  they  pretend  love  for  the  truth,  their  intemperate  zeal,  breathing 
but  intolerance,  betray  their  ambition,  and  their  desire  of  dominion. — 
Benj.  Brook,  in  "  History  of  Religious  Liberty." 

One  of  the  greatest  blessings  we  enjoy,  one  of  the  greatest  blessings 
a  people  can  enjoy,  is  Uberty;  but  every  good  in  this  Ufe  has  its  alloy  of 
evil;  licentiousness  is  the  alloy  of  Uberty;  it  is  the  ebulhtion,  and  ex- 
crescence ;  it  is  a  speck  upon  the  eye  of  the  political  body,  which  I  can 
never  touch  but  with  a  gentle,  with  a  trembling,  hand,  lest  I  destroy  the 
body,  lest  I  injure  the  eye  upon  which  it  is  apt  to  appear.  There  is  such 
a  connection  between  licentiousness  and  liberty  that  it  is  not  easy  to 
correct  the  one  without  dangerously  wounding  the  other;  it  is  extremely 
hard  to  distinguish  the  true  limit  between  them ;  like  a  changeable  silk, 
we  can  easily  see  there  are  two  different  colors,  but  we  cannot  easily 
discover  where  the  one  ends  or  where  the  other  begins. 

We  are  told  that  Augustus,  after  having  established  his  empire,  re- 
stored order  in  Rome  by  restraining  Ucentiousness.  God  forbid  we 
should  in  this  country  have  order  restored  or  licentiousness  restrained, 
at  so  dear  a  rate  as  the  people  of  Rome  paid  for  it  to  Augustus. 

Let  us  consider  that  arbitrary  power  has  seldom  or  never  been  intro- 
duced into  any  country  at  once.  It  must  be  introduced  by  slow  degrees, 
and  as  it  were  step  by  step,  lest  the  people  should  see  its  approach.  The 
barriers  and  fences  of  the  people's  liberty  must  be  plucked  one  by  one, 
and  some  plausible  pretenses  must  be  found  for  removing  or  hood- 
winking, one  after  another,  those  sentries  who  are  posted  by  the  con- 
stitution of  a  free  country  for  warning  the  people  of  their  danger.  When 
these  preparatory  steps  are  once  made,  the  people  may  then  indeed, 
with  regret,  see  slavery  and  arbitrary  power  making  long  strides  over 
their  lands ;  but  it  will  be  too  late  to  think  of  preventing  or  avoiding  the 
impending  ruin. 

The  stage  and  the  press  are  two  of  our  out-sentries ;  if  we  remove  them, 
if  we  hoodwink  them,  if  we  throw  them  into  fetters,  the  enemy  may  sur- 
prise us. — Lord  Chesterfield,  Miscellaneous  Works  by  "Matty,"  vol.  IV. 

.  .  .  And  is  not  this  a  Crime  of  the  same  nature  with  the  Indices 
expurgatorii,  which  all  honest,  wise,  and  pious  men  abhor  ?  It  is  at^best 
but  an  oblique  Art,  servant  only  to  Times,  Parties,  and  Interests,  de- 
structive to  Learning  and  Ingenuity,  to  suppress  Monuments  of  Reason 
used  by  their  Adversaries,  on  whose  side  happily  Truth  is  ?  The  more 
noble  and  warrantable  way  is  to  abandon  all  such  little  and  disingenu- 


102  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

ous  Tricks  and  Devices,  and  labour  by  all  holy  means  and  endeavours 
to  suppress  Vice.  To  punish  and  discountenance  sin  and  sinners  is 
more  glorious,  before  God  and  man,  than  to  padlock  Presses;  it  being 
a  shrewd  sign  that  Truth  is  not  on  their  side,  that  suppress  the  adverse 
Reasons.  Truth  is  able  to  justifie  itself,  and  acquire  its  own  glory  and 
reward  of  Ingenuity,  and  Christian  Simplicity,  when  suppressing  or 
expunging,  betrays  that  we  either  distrust  God  for  the  maintenance  of 
his  own  Truths,  or  that  we  distrust  the  Cause,  or  our  selves,  or  our 
Abilities.  .  .  . 

But  before  this  [1244  A.  D.]  we  had  no  Charm  nor  Lock  upon  the 
Press;  no  Purgatory  for  Books;  no  Limbus  Patrum  for  their  Authors; 
we  had  no  proper,  real,  and  propitiatory  Sacrifice  in  the  Mass  for  the 
living  and  the  dead,  nor  dry  or  demi-Communions ;  no  Conventicle  at 
Trent;  no  new  Creed  with  12  new  Articles  either  of  Trent  or  of  Johannes 
Baptista  Posa,  a  Spanish  Jesuit,  never  heard  of  before,  newly  printed, 
newly  come  forth;  no  blotting  out  of  the  second  Commandment;  no 
dividing  of  the  tenth  Commandment  into  two,  to  amuse  and  cheat  the 
People;  no  Doctrine  of  Infallibility,  nor  yet  of  Probability;  no  Penance 
Sacramental;  no  Satisfaction;  no  Sacramental  Confession,  as  now 
used;  no  Hurtado;  no  Filliucius;  no  Banny;  no  Lessius;  no  Escobar; 
no  Jesuits  Morals;  no  power  to  depose  Kings;  no  dissolving  Oaths  of 
Allegiance ;  no  Gunpowder-Treasons,  and  an  Illiad  more  of  such  damn- 
able Errors  and  Heresies.  I  conclude  therefore  that  it  bears  no  shew 
that  forbidding  men  to  write  tends  to  any  good  end,  but  really  to  the  end 
to  conceal  the  Truth,  and  to  shew  it  to  the  World  only  under  a  Mask, 
or  some  deceitful  Light. — Anon. 

He  who  is  for  forcibly  stopping  the  mouth  of  his  opponent,  or  for  burn- 
ing any  man  at  the  stake,  or  thrusting  him  into  prison,  or  exacting  a 
pecuniary  fine  from  him,  or  impairing  his  means  of  procuring  an  honest 
livelihood,  or  treating  him  scornfully,  on  account  of  his  pecuHar  view  on 
any  subject,  whether  relating  to  God,  man  [or  sex],  to  time  or  eternity, 
is  under  the  dominion  of  a  spirit  of  ruffianism  or  cowardice,  or  animated 
by  that  fierce  intolerance  which  characterized  Paul  of  Tarsus  in  his  zeal 
to  exterminate  the  heresy  of  Christianity.  On  the  other  hand,  he  who 
forms  his  opinions  from  the  dictates  of  enlightened  reason,  and  sincerely 
desires  to  be  led  into  all  truth,  dreads  nothing  so  much  as  the  suppression 
of  free  inquiry — is  at  all  times  ready  to  give  a  reason  for  the  hope  that  is 
in  him — calmly  listens  to  the  objection  of  others — feels  nothing  of  anger 
or  alarm  lest  his  foundation  be  swept  away  by  the  waves  of  opposition. 
It  is  impossible,  therefore,  for  him  to  be  a  persecutor,  or  to  call  upon  the 
strong  arm  of  violence  to  put  a  gag  into  the  mouth  of  any  one,  however 
heretical  in  his  sentiments.  In  proportion  as  we  perceive  and  embrace 
the  truth,  do  we  become  meek,  heroic,  magnanimous,  divine. 


LACONICS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY  103 

They  may  not  talk  of  faith  in  God,  or  of  standing  on  the  eternal  rock, 
who  turn  pale  with  fear  or  are  flushed  with  anger  when  their  cherished 
convictions  are  called  in  question,  or  who  cry  out:  "If  we  let  him  thus 
alone,  all  men  will  believe  on  him,  and  the  Romans  shall  come  and 
take  away  both  our  place  and  nation."  They  know  not  what  spirit 
they  are  of;  the  light  that  is  in  them  is  darkness,  and  how  great  that 
darkness !  It  was  not  Jesus  that  was  filled  with  consternation,  but  his 
enemies,  on  account  of  the  heresy  of  untrammelled  thought  and  free 
utterance:  "Then  the  high  priest  rent  his  clothes,  saying,  'He  hath 
spoken  blasphemy;  what  further  need  have  we  of  witnesses?  Behold 
now  ye  have  heard  his  blasphemy.  What  think  ye  ? '  They  answered 
and  said:  'He  is  guilty  of  death.'  Then  did  they  spit  in  his  face, 
and  buffeted  him,  and  others  smote  him  with  the  palms  of  their  hands." 
So  have  ever  behaved  the  pious  advocates  of  error,  such  has  ever  been 
the  treatment  of  the  "  blasphemous  "  defender  of  truth. — ^William  Lloyd 
Garrison  in  his  essay  on  "Free  Speech  and  Free  Inquiry." 

At  home,  it  [the  Uberty  of  the  press]  has,  in  truth,  produced  a  gradual 
revolution  in  our  government.  By  increasing  the  number  of  those  who 
exercise  some  sort  of  judgment  on  public  affairs,  it  has  created  a  sub- 
stantial democracy,  infinitely  more  important  than  democratical  forms 
which  have  been  the  subject  of  so  much  contest.  So  that  I  may  venture 
to  say,  England  has  not  only  in  its  forms  the  most  democratical  govern- 
ment that  ever  existed  in  a  great  country,  but  in  substance  has  the  most 
democratical  government  that  ever  existed  in  any  country — if  the  most 
substantial  democracy  be  that  state  in  which  the  greatest  number  of 
men  feel  an  interest  in  expressing  opinion  upon  political  questions,  and 
in  which  the  greatest  number  of  judgments  and  wills  concur  in  influenc- 
ing public  measures. 

In  great  monarchies,  the  press  has  always  been  considered  as  too 
formidable  an  engine  to  be  intrusted  to  unlicensed  individuals.  But, 
in  other  continental  countries,  either  by  the  laws  of  the  state,  or  by  long 
habits  of  liberality  and  toleration  in  magistrates,  a  liberty  of  discussion 
has  been  enjoyed,  perhaps  sufficient  enough  for  most  useful  purposes. 
It  existed,  in  fact,  where  it  was  not  protected  by  law ;  and  the  wise  and 
generous  connivance  of  governments  was  daily  more  and  more  secured 
by  the  growing  civilization  of  their  subjects.  In  Holland,  in  Switzer- 
land, in  the  imperial  towns  of  Germany,  the  press  was  either  legally  or 
practically  free.  .  .  . 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that,  in  the  year  of  the  Armada,  Queen  Elizabeth 
caused  to  be  printed  the  first  gazettes  that  ever  appeared  in  England; 
and  I  own  when  I  consider  that  this  mode  of  rousing  a  national  spirit 
was  then  absolutely  unexampled,  that  she  could  have  no  assurance  of  its 
efficacy  from  the  precedents  of  former  times,  I  am  disposed  to  regard 


104  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

her  having  recourse  to  it  as  one  of  the  most  sagacious  experiments ;  one 
of  the  greatest  discoveries  of  pohtical  genius,  one  of  the  most  striking 
anticipations  of  future  experience,  that  we  find  in  history.  I  mention 
it  to  you  to  justify  the  opinion  that  I  have  ventured  to  state  of  the  close 
connection  of  our  national  spirit  with  our  press,  even  our  periodical  press, 
— Sir  James  Mackintosh,  1803. 

Power  may  justly  be  compared  to  a  great  river:  Wliile  kept  within 
its  due  bounds,  it  is  both  beautiful  and  useful;  but  when  it  overflows  its 
banks,  it  is  then  too  impetuous  to  be  stemmed ;  it  bears  down  all  before 
it,  and  brings  destruction  and  desolation  wherever  it  goes.  If,  then,  this 
is  the  nature  of  power,  let  us  at  least  do  our  duty,  and  like  wise  men, 
who  value  freedom,  use  our  utmost  care  to  support  liberty,  the  only 
bulwark  against  lawless  power,  which,  in  all  ages,  has  sacrificed  to  its 
wild  lust  and  boundless  ambition  the  blood  of  the  best  men  that  ever 
lived. 

I  hope  to  be  pardoned.  Sir,  for  my  zeal  upon  this  occasion;  it  is  an 
old  and  wise  caution,  "  That  when  our  neighbor's  house  is  on  fire,  we 
ought  to  take  care  of  our  own."  For  though,  blessed  be  God,  I  live  in 
a  government  where  Liberty  is  well  understood,  and  freely  enjoyed, 
yet  experience  has  shown  us  all — I  am  sure  it  has  to  me — that  a  bad 
precedent  in  one  government  is  soon  set  up  for  an  authority  in  another; 
and  therefore  I  cannot  but  think  it  mine,  and  every  [other]  honest  man's 
duty,  that — while  we  pay  due  obedience  to  men  in  authority — ^we  ought 
at  the  same  time  to  be  on  our  guard  against  power,  wherever  we  appre- 
hend that  it  may  affect  ourselves  or  our  fellow  subjects. 

Men  who  injure  and  oppress  the  people  under  their  administrations 
provoke  them  to  cry  out  and  complain,  and  then  make  that  very  com- 
plaint the  foundation  for  new  oppressions  and  prosecutions.  I  wish  I 
could  say  there  were  no  instances  of  this  kind.  But  to  conclude,  the 
question  before  the  court  and  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  is  not  of  small 
or  private  concei3i ;  it  is  not  the  cause  of  a  poor  printer,  nor  of  New  York 
alone,  which  you  are  trying.  No!  it  may,  in  its  consequences,  affect 
every  freeman  that  fives  under  the  British  government,  on  the  main  of 
America.  It  is  the  best  cause;  it  is  the  cause  of  liberty;  and  I  make 
no  doubt  but  your  upright  conduct,  this  day,  will  not  only  entitle  you  to 
the  love  and  esteem  of  your  fellow  citizens,  but  every  man  who  prefers 
freedom  to  a  life  of  slavery  will  bless  and  honor  you  as  men  who  have 
baffled  the  attempts  of  tyranny,  and  by  an  impartial  and  uncorrupt 
verdict  have  laid  a  noble  foundation  for  securing  to  ourselves,  our  pos- 
erity,  our  neighbors,  that  which  nature  and  the  laws  of  our  country 
have  given  us,  a  right — the  liberty — both  of  exposing  and  opposing  ar- 
bitrary power  in  these  parts  of  the  world  at  least,  by  speaking  and  writ- 
ing the  truth. — Andrew  Hamilton,  in  his  defense  of  John  Peter  Zenger. 


LACONICS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY  105 

Whoever  persecutes  a  disagreeing  person,  arms  all  the  world  against 
himself,  and  all  pious  people  of  his  own  persuasion,  when  the  scales  of 
authority  return  to  his  adversary  and  attest  his  contradictory;  and  then 
what  can  he  urge  for  mercy  for  himself  or  his  party,  that  showeth  none 
to  others  ?  If  he  says  that  he  is  to  be  spared  because  he  beUeves  true, 
but  the  other  was  justly  persecuted  because  he  was  in  error,  he  is  ridic- 
ulous, for  he  is  as  confidently  believed  to  be  a  heretic  as  he  beheves  his 
adversary  such,  and  whether  he  be  or  no,  being  the  thing  in  question, 
of  this  he  is  not  to  be  his  own  judge,  but  he  that  hath  authority  on  his 
side  will  be  sure  to  judge  against  him. 

Either  the  disagreeing  person  is  in  error  or  not,  but  a  true  beUever. 
In  either  of  the  cases,  to  persecute  him  is  extremely  imprudent.  For 
if  he  be  a  true  believer,  then  it  is  a  clear  case  that  we  do  open  violence  to 
God,  and  his  servants,  and  his  truth.  If  he  be  in  error,  what  greater 
folly  and  stupidity  than  to  give  to  error  the  glory  of  martyrdom,  and  the 
advantages  which  are  accidentally  consequent  to  a  persecution  ?  For 
as  it  was  true  of  the  martyrs,  Quoties  morimur,  toties  nascimur,  and  the 
increase  of  their  trouble  was  the  increase  of  their  confidence  and  the 
establishment  of  their  persuasions,  so  it  is  in  all  false  opinions,  for  that 
an  opinion  is  true  or  false  is  extrinsical  or  accidental  to  the  consequents 
and  advantages  it  gets  by  being  afilicted.  And  there  is  a  popular  pity 
that  follows  all  persons  in  misery,  and  that  compassion  breeds  likeness 
of  affections,  and  that  very  often  produces  likeness  of  persuasion,  and 
so  much  the  rather  because  there  arises  a  jealousy  and  pregnant  sus- 
picion that  they  who  persecute  an  opinion  are  destitute  of  suflScient 
arguments  to  confute  it. 

It  is  unnatural  and  unreasonable  to  persecute  disagreeing  opinions. 
Unnatural,  for  understanding  being  a  thing  wholly  spiritual,  cannot  be 
restrained,  and  therefore  neither  punished  by  corporal  afflictions.  It  is 
in  aliena  republica,  a  matter  of  another  world.  You  may  as  well  cure 
the  cohc  by  brushing  a  man's  clothes,  or  fill  a  man's  belly  with  a  syl- 
logism. These  things  do  not  communicate  in  matter,  and  therefore 
neither  in  action  nor  passion.  And  since  all  punishments  in  a  prudent 
government  punish  the  offender  to  prevent  a  future  crime,  and  so  it 
proves  more  medicinal  than  vindictive,  the  punitive  act  being  in  order 
to  the  cure  and  prevention,  and  since  no  punishment  of  the  body  can 
cure  a  disease  in  the  soul,  it  is  disproportionable  in  nature,  and  in  all 
civil  government  to  punish  where  the  punishment  can  do  no  good ;  it 
may  be  an  act  of  tyranny,  but  never  of  justice.  For  is  an  opinion  ever 
the  more  true  or  false  for  being  persecuted  ? 

Force  in  matters  of  opinion  can  do  no  good,  but  is  very  apt  to  do  hurt, 
for  no  man  can  change  his  opinion  when  he  will,  or  be  satisfied  in  his 
reason  that  his  opinion  is  false  because  discountenanced. — Rev.  Jeremy 
Taylor,  "  Discourse  on  the  Liberty  of  Prophesying." 


106  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Charles  the  Fifth,  they  say,  repented  of  having  persecuted  the  Luther- 
ans. He  said  to  himself,  I  have  thirty  watches  on  my  table,  and  no  two 
of  them  mark  precisely  the  same  time — ^how  could  I  then  imagine  that, 
in  matters  of  religion,  I  could  make  all  men  think  alike  ?  What  folly 
and  pride! — Helvetius,  "  De  1'  Homme,"  vol.  I.,  sec.  iv.,  ch.  17. 

It  is  to  discussion,  and  consequently  to  the  Uberty  of  the  press,  that  the 
science  of  physics  owes  its  improvement.  Had  this  liberty  never  sub- 
sisted, how  many  errors,  consecrated  by  time,  would  be  cited  as  incon- 
testable axioms !  What  is  here  said  of  physics,  is  applicable  to  morality 
and  poHtics.  If  we  would  be  sure  of  the  truth  of  our  opinions,  we  should 
make  them  public.  It  is  by  the  touch-stone  of  discussion  that  they 
must  be  proved.  The  press  therefore  should  be  free.  The  magistrate 
who  prevents  it  opposes  all  improvement  in  morality  and  politics;  he 
sins  against  his  country,  he  chokes  the  very  seeds  of  those  happy  ideas 
which  the  liberty  of  the  press  would  produce.  And  who  can  estimate 
that  loss !  Wherever  this  Uberty  is  withheld,  ignorance,  like  a  profound 
darkness,  spreads  over  the  minds  of  men.  It  is  then  that  lovers  of  truth, 
at  the  same  time  that  they  seek  it,  fear  to  find  it ;  they  are  sensible  that 
they  must  either  conceal,  basely  disguise  it,  or  expose  themselves  to  per- 
secution, which  every  man  dreads. 

But  what  whimsical  opinions  will  not  such  a  liberty  bring  forth  ?  Be 
it  so — ^these  opinions,  destroyed  by  reason  as  soon  as  produced  by  ca- 
price, will  effect  no  alteration  in  the  tranquility  of  a  state. 

There  are  no  specious  pretexts  with  which  hypocrisy  and  tyranny 
have  not  colored  their  desire  of  imposing  silence  on  men  of  discernment ; 
and  there  is  no  virtuous  citizen  that  can  see  in  the  pretexts  any  legitimate 
reason  for  remaining  silent. 

The  pubUcation  of  truth  can  be  displeasing  to  those  impostors  only, 
who,  too  frequently  gaining  the  attention  of  princes,  represent  an  en- 
lightened people  as  factious  and  the  barbarous  people  as  docile.  But 
what  does  experience  teach  us  upon  this  subject  ?  That  all  intelligent 
people  are  deaf  to  the  idle  declamations  of  fanaticism,  and  shocked  by 
all  acts  of  injustice. 

When  a  government  prohibits  writing  on  matters  of  administration, 
it  makes  a  vow  of  blindness,  a  vow  which  is  common  enough.  As  long 
as  my  finances  are  well  regulated,  and  my  army  well  disciplined,  said  a 
great  prince,  let  who  will  write  against  my  discipline  and  my  adminis- 
tration ;  but  if  I  neglect  either  of  these,  who  knows  whether  I  should  not 
have  the  weakness  to  compel  such  writers  to  silence. 

To  limit  the  press  is  to  insult  the  nation;  to  prohibit  the  reading  of 
certain  books  is  to  declare  the  inhabitants  to  be  either  fools  or  slaves. 

Should  we  to  destroy  error  compel  it  to  silence  ?  No.  How  then  ? 
liCt  it  talk  on.  Error,  obscure  of  itself,  is  rejected  by  every  sound  un- 
derstanding.    If  time  have  not  given  it  credit,  and  it  be  not  favored  by 


LACONICS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY  107 

government,  it  cannot  bear  the  eye  of  examination.     Reason  will  ulti- 
mately direct  wherever  it  be  freely  exercised. — Helvetius,  "  De  I'  Homme.' 

In  this  situation,  men  not  only  shrink  from  the  frowns  of  a  stem  mag- 
istrate, but  are  obliged  to  fly  from  their  very  species.  The  seeds  of 
destruction  are  sown  in  civil  intercourse,  and  in  social  habitudes.  The 
blood  of  wholesome  kindred  is  infected.  Their  tables  and  beds  are 
surrounded  with  snares.  All  the  means  given  by  Providence  to  make 
their  life  safe  and  comfortable  are  perverted  into  instruments  of  terror 
and  torment.  This  species  of  universal  subserviency,  that  makes  the 
very  servant  who  waits  behind  your  chair  the  arbiter  of  your  life  and 
fortune,  has  such  a  tendency  to  degrade  and  abase  mankind,  and  to 
deprive  them  of  that  assured  and  Hberal  state  of  mind  which  alone  can 
make  us  what  we  ought  to  be,  that  I  vow  to  God,  I  would  sooner  bring 
myself  to  put  a  man  to  immediate  death  for  opinions  I  disliked,  and  so 
to  get  rid  of  the  man  and  his  opinions  at  once,  than  to  fret  him  with  a 
feverish  being  tainted  with  the  goal  distemper  of  a  contagious  servitude, 
to  keep  him  above  ground,  an  animated  mass  of  putrefaction,  corrupted 
himself,  and  corrupting  all  about  him. — Edmund  Burke. 

There  is  a  most  absurd  and  audacious  method  of  reasoning  avowed 
by  some  bigots  and  enthusiasts,  and  through  fear  assented  to  by  some 
wiser  and  better  men ;  it  is  this :  They  argue  against  a  fair  discussion  of 
popular  prejudices,  because,  say  they,  though  they  would  be  found 
without  any  reasonable  support,  yet  the  discovery  might  be  productive 
of  the  most  dangerous  consequences.  Absurd  and  blasphemous  notion ! 
As  if  all  happiness  was  not  connected  with  the  practise  of  virtue,  which 
necessarily  depends  upon  the  knowledge  of  truth;  that  is,  upon  the 
knowledge  of  those  unalterable  relations  which  Providence  has  ordained 
that  every  thing  should  bear  to  every  other.  These  relations,  which  are 
truth  itself,  the  foundation  of  virtue,  and  consequently  the  only  measures 
of  happiness,  should  be  likewise  the  only  measures  by  which  we  should 
direct  our  reasoning.  To  these  we  should  conform  in  good  earnest; 
and  not  think  to  force  nature,  and  the  whole  order  of  her  system,  by  a 
compliance  with  our  pride  and  folly,  to  conform  to  our  artificial  regula- 
tions. It  is  by  a  conformity  to  this  method,  we  owe  the  discovery  of  the 
few  truths  we  know,  and  the  little  and  rational  happiness  we  enjoy.  We 
have  something  fairer  play  than  a  reasoner  could  have  expected  formerly, 
and  we  derive  advantages  from  it  which  are  very  visible. 

The  fabric  of  superstition  has  in  this  our  age  and  nation  received 
much  ruder  shocks  than  it  had  ever  felt  before ;  and  through  the  chinks 
and  breaches  of  our  prison,  we  see  such  gUmmerings  of  light,  and  ftel 
such  refreshing  airs  of  liberty,  as  daily  raise  our  ardor  for  more.  The 
miseries  derived  to  mankind  from  superstition  under  the  name  of  reU- 
ion,  and  of  ecclesiastical  tyranny  under  the  name  of  church  government, 


108  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

have  been  clearly  and  usefully  exposed.  We  begin  to  think  and  to  act 
from  reason  and  from  nature  alone.  This  is  true  of  several,  but  still  is 
by  far  the  majority  in  the  same  old  state  of  blindness  and  slavery,  and 
much  is  it  to  be  feared  that  we  shall  perpetually  relapse  while  the  real 
productive  cause  of  all  this  superstitious  folly,  enthusiastical  nonsense, 
and  holy  tyranny,  holds  a  reverend  place  in  the  estimation  even  of  those 
who  are  otherwise  enlightened. — Burke,  "Vindication  of  Natural 
Society,"  page  6  and  7,  Tucker's  Edition,  after  Ed.  of  1780. 

.  .  .  To  inflict  blows  upon  the  body  because  the  mind  has  erred  in  a 
process  of  reasoning,  what  is  this  but  to  seek  a  remedy  in  the  physical 
world,  when  the  evil  to  be  cured  is  in  the  moral  and  intellectual  world ! 
This  is  as  appropriate  and  rational  as  it  would  be  to  send  for  a  surgeon 
to  amputate  a  limb,  or  apply  a  caustic,  because  the  intellect  has  failed 
to  determine  aright  of  two  events,  which  is  the  cause  and  which  is  the 
effect;  has  failed  to  determine  right,  whether  the  apparent  motion  of  the 
sun  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  revolution  of  the  heavens,  or  to  the  revolution 
of  the  earth  on  its  axis.  And  when  the  illustrious  Galileo  was  condemned 
by  the  Roman  doctors  as  a  heretic,  and  thrust  into  prison  for  asserting 
that  the  earth  did  revolve  on  its  axis  in  twenty-four  hours,  who  does  not 
perceive  that  they  utterly  mistook  the  appropriate  means  of  exposing 
and  refuting  the  supposed  error!  Who  does  not  perceive  that  it  was  one 
thing  to  shew  the  world  they  possessed  the  greater  power,  and  were  dis- 
posed to  use  it,  and  quite  another  thing  to  demonstrate,  that  in  astronomy 
they  thought  truely,  and  their  illustrious  victim  erroneously!  What  is 
it  that  makes  them  appear  so  ridiculous  as  the  guardians  of  learning 
and  truth,  but  the  incongruity  of  replying  to  a  philosophical  statement, 
not  with  facts  and  arguments,  not  with  weapons  appropriate  to  that  in- 
tellectual province  where  the  controversy  lay,  but  with  an  application  of 
brute  force!  We  look  to  see  them  throw  over  the  mind  of  the  philoso- 
pher the  light  of  superior  knowledge  and  genius,  when  lo!  they  come 
with  a  legion  of  armed  soldiers,  and  thrust  his  body  into  a  dungeon !  We 
wait  to  see  them  produce  an  argument,  and  they  inflict  a  blow ! 

...  It  may  repress  convictions,  it  may  lead  to  insincerity,  it  may 
teach  men  to  disregard  the  intellect  and  conscience,  it  may  retard  the 
progress  of  truth,  but  it  can  never  change  the  belief,  nor  contribute  one 
thought  to  the  sum  of  human  wisdom.  It  employs  instruments  which 
have  nothing  to  do  with  truth,  and  which  cannot  influence  the  efforts 
of  mind  in  the  pursuit  of  it. 

,  .  .  Else,  if  this  be  not  so,  if  truth  is  to  be  maintained  by  force  of  arms, 
then  the  blood  of  martyrs  refutes  Christianity,  and  the  death  of  Christ, 
instead  of  being  a  glorious  proof  of  love  and  compassion,  stamps  him 
as  a  deceiver.  In  that  case,  too,  the  ancient  trial  by  combat  was  a  ra- 
tional mode  of  establishing  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused.     In 


LACONICS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY  109 

short,  on  this  supposition,  might  makes  the  right,  and  a  tiger  can  reason 
better  than  a  man ! 

.  .  .  Connected,  therefore,  with  freedom  of  opinion,  and  resting  on 
the  same  basis,  are  our  freedom  of  speech  and  freedom  of  the  press — 
rights,  without  which  freedom  of  opinion  is  but  a  name  and  a  mockery. 

.  .  .  When  we  see  a  man  assail  with  violence  all  who  controvert  his 
opinions — ^when  we  see  him  attempt  to  crush  with  the  weight  of  popular 
odium,  attempt  to  silence  opposing  presses  and  to  stifle  opposing  dis- 
cussion, by  mere  brute  force,  what  is  this,  but  evidence  irresistible,  that 
he  loves  his  own  opinions,  his  own  interests  or  his  own  party,  better  than 
he  loves  free  discussion  and  the  fundamental  rights  of  man  ?  What  is 
it  but  proof  that  he  wants  confidence  in  the  justice  of  his  cause,  and  is 
afraid  of  the  light  ?  "  Men  love  darkness  better  than  light,  because  their 
deeds  are  evil.  For  every  one  who  doeth  evil  hateth  the  light,  neither 
Cometh  to  the  light,  lest  their  deeds  should  be  reproved.  But  he  that 
doeth  truth  cometh  to  the  light,  that  his  deeds  may  be  made  manifest, 
that  they  are  wrought  in  God."  To  court  discussion  is,  of  course,  no 
certain  proof  that  we  are  right;  but  to  be  afraid  of  it,  is  a  conclusive 
indication  that  we  suspect  at  least  we  may  be  wrong, 

.  .  .  Within  a  few  years  public  assemblies  have  been  held  in  many 
parts  of  our  country,  in  which  the  most  corrupt  disorganizing  doctrines 
have  been  boldly  and  openly  maintained.  The  Saviour  of  the  world 
has  been  scoffed  at  as  an  impostor — the  marriage  institution  attempted 
to  be  subverted,  and  not  a  few  of  the  pillars  of  religion  and  of  civil  society 
assailed  with  the  utmost  violence  by  polluted  atheistical  outcasts.  Nay, 
they  have  not  stopped  here — ^They  have  established  presses,  and  sent 
out  their  tracts  and  their  newspapers  far  and  wide  to  blaspheme  our 
God,  to  poison  the  fountains  of  domestic  felicity,  and  to  corrupt  the 
principles  of  our  youth.  This  was  a  great  outrage — this  was  a  severe 
trial  of  our  faith  in  the  power  of  truth.  Now,  what  if  popular  indigna- 
tion had  broken  in  upon  these  assemblies,  and  dispersed  them  ?  What 
if  popular  violence  had  seized  upon  these  prostituted  presses — these 
noble  instruments  made  to  be  the  ministers  of  truth,  but  now  so  grossly 
abused — had  ground  them  to  powder  and  scattered  them  to  the  four 
winds?  .  .  .  Yes!  from  Maine  to  Louisiana  there  would  have  been  a 
cry  of  shame  and  indignation,  and  this  great  nation  would  never  have 
been  appeased  till  the  guilty  had  been  brought  to  condign  punishment. — 
Rev.  Horatio  Potter,  "  Intellectual  Liberty,"  Albany,  1837. 

Without  freedom  of  thought  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  wisdom, 
and  no  such  thing  as  public  Uberty  without  freedom  of  speech — ^which 
is  the  right  of  every  man,  as  far  as  by  it  he  does  not  hurt  and  control  the 
right  of  another;  and  this  is  the  only  check  which  it  ought  to  suffer,  and 
the  only  bounds  which  it  ought  to  know. 


no  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Whoever  would  overturn  the  liberty  of  the  nation  must  begin  by  sub- 
duing freedom  of  speech. 

To  do  pubhc  mischief  without  hearing  of  it  is  the  prerogative  and 
felicity  of  tjTanny. 

All  ministers  therefore  who  were  oppressoi-s,  or  intended  to  be  oppres- 
sors, have  been  loud  in  their  complaints  against  freedom  of  speech,  and 
a  Ucense  of  the  press;  and  always  restrained  or  endeavored  to  restrain 
both.  In  consequence  of  this  they  have  brow-beaten  writers,  punished 
them  violently  and  against  law,  and  burnt  their  works.  By  all  which 
they  showed  how  much  truth  alarmed  them,  and  how  much  they  were 
at  enmity  with  truth. 

Freedom  of  speech  produces  excellent  writers,  and  encourages  men 
of  fine  genius.  Tacitus  tells  us  that  the  Roman  commonwealth  read 
great  and  numerous  authors,  but  when  it  was  enslaved  those  great  wits 
were  no  more.  Tyranny  had  usurped  the  place  of  equality,  which  is 
the  soul  of  Uberty,  and  destroyed  public  courage.  The  minds  of  men, 
terrified  by  unjust  power,  degenerated  into  all  the  vileness  and  methods 
of  servitude;  abject  sycophancy  and  blind  submission  grew  the  only 
means  of  preferment,  and  indeed  of  safety;  men  durst  not  open  their 
mouths  but  to  flatter. 

Pliny  the  younger  observes  that  this  dread  of  tyranny  had  such  effect 
that  the  senate,  the  great  Roman  senate,  became  at  last  stupid  and  dumb. 
And  in  one  of  his  epistles,  speaking  of  the  works  of  his  uncle,  he  makes 
an  apology  for  eight  of  them,  as  not  written  with  the  same  vigor  which 
was  to  be  found  in  the  rest;  for  that  these  eight  were  written  in  the  reign 
of  Nero,  when  the  spirit  of  writing  was  cramped  by  fear.  ...  As  long 
as  there  are  such  things  as  printing  and  writing,  there  will  be  libels — it 
is  an  evil  arising  out  of  a  much  greater  good.  However,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  the  press  is  to  be  sunk  for  the  errors  of  the  press — ^for  it  is  cer- 
tainly of  much  less  consequence  that  an  innocent  man  should  now  and 
then  be  aspersed  than  that  all  men  should  be  enslaved. 

Many  methods  have  been  tried  to  remedy  this  evil.  In  Turkey  and 
Eastern  monarchies,  all  printing  is  forbid ;  which  does  it  with  a  witness ; 
for  if  there  can  be  no  printing  at  all  there  can  be  no  libels  printed ;  and 
by  the  same  reason  there  ought  to  be  no  talking,  lest  people  should  talk 
treason,  blasphemy,  or  nonsense;  and  for  a  stronger  reason  yet,  no 
preaching,  because  the  orator  has  an  opportunity  of  haranguing  often 
a  larger  auditory  than  he  can  persuade  to  read  his  lucubrations ;  but  I 
desire  it  may  be  remembered  that  there  is  neither  liberty,  arts,  sciences, 
learning,  or  knowledge  in  these  countries. 

But  another  method  has  been  thought  on  in  these  Western  parts  of 
the  world,  much  less  eiffectual,  and  yet  more  mischievous  than  the  for- 
mer, namely,  to  put  the  press  under  the  protection  of  the  prevailing  party. 


LACONICS   OF  FREE  INQUIRY  m 

and  authorize  libels  on  one  side  only,  and  deny  the  other  side  the  oppor- 
tunity of  defending  themselves. 

What  mischief  is  done  by  libels  to  balance  all  these  evils?  They 
seldom  or  never  annoy  an  innocent  man,  or  promote  any  considerable 
error.  Wise  and  honest  men  laugh  at  them,  and  despise  them,  and  such 
arrows  always  fly  over  their  heads  or  fall  at  their  feet.  Most  of  the  world 
take  part  with  a  virtuous  man,  and  punish  calumny  by  their  detestation 
of  it.  The  best  way  to  prevent  Ubels  is  not  to  deserve  them.  Guiltv 
men  alone  fear  them,  or  are  hurt  by  them,  whose  actions  will  not  bear 
examination,  and  therefore  must  not  be  examined.  'Tis  fact  alone 
that  annoys  them ;  for  if  you  tell  no  truth,  I  dare  say  you  may  have  their 
leave  to  tell  as  many  lies  as  you  please. 

The  same  is  true  in  speculative  opinions.  You  may  write  nonsense 
and  folly  as  long  as  you  see  fit,  and  no  one  complains  of  it  but  the  book- 
seller. But  if  a  bold,  honest,  and  wise  book  salhes  forth,  and  attacks 
those  who  think  themselves  secure  in  their  trenches,  then  their  camp  is 
in  danger,  and  they  call  out  all  hands  to  arms,  and  their  enemy  is  to  be 
destroyed  by  fire,  sword,  or  fraud.  But 't  is  senseless  to  think  that  any 
truth  can  suffer  by  being  thoroughly  searched,  or  examined  into;  or 
that  the  discovery  of  it  can  prejudice  right  religion,  equal  government, 
or  the  happiness  of  society  in  any  respect.  She  has  so  many  advantages 
above  error,  that  she  wants  only  to  be  shown  to  gain  admiration  and  es- 
teem; and  we  see  every  day  that  she  breaks  the  bonds  of  tyranny  and 
fraud,  and  shines  through  the  mists  of  superstition  and  ignorance ;  and 
what  then  would  she  do,  if  these  barriers  were  removed,  and  her  fetters 
taken  off? — Gordon,  "Cato's  Letters." 

Governments,  no  more  than  individual  men,  are  infallible.  The 
cabinets  of  princes  and  the  parliaments  of  kingdoms  are  often  less 
likely  to  be  right  in  their  conclusions  than  the  theorist  in  his  closet. 
What  system  of  religion  or  government  has  not  in  its  turn  been  patron- 
ized by  national  authority  ?  The  consequence  therefore  of  admitting 
this  authority  is,  not  merely  attributing  to  government  a  right  to  impose 
some,  but  any  or  all,  opinions  upon  the  community.  Are  Paganism  and 
Christianity,  the  religions  of  Mahomet,  Zoroaster,  and  Confucius,  are 
monarchy  and  aristocracy  in  all  their  forms,  equally  worthy  to  be  per- 
petuated among  mankind  ?  Is  it  quite  certain  that  the  greatest  of  all 
calamities  is  change  ?  Have  no  revolution  in  government  and  no  refor- 
mation in  religion  been  productive  of  more  benefit  than  disadvantage  ? 
There  is  no  species  of  reasoning  in  defence  of  the  suppression  of  heresy 
which  may  not  be  brought  back  to  this  monstrous  principle,  that  the 
knowledge  of  truth,  and  the  introduction  of  right  principles  of  policy, 
are  circumstances  altogether  indifferent  to  the  welfare  of  mankind. 

Reason  and  good  sense  will  not  fail  to  augur  ill  of  that  system  of  things 


112  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

which  is  too  sacred  to  be  looked  into ;  and  to  suspect  that  there  must  be 
something  essentially  weak  that  thus  shrinks  from  the  eye  of  inquiry. 

Nothing  can  be  more  unreasonable  than  an  attempt  to  retain  men  in 
one  common  opinion  by  the  dictate  of  authority.  The  opinion  thus 
obtruded  upon  the  minds  of  the  pubUc  is  not  their  real  opinion;  it  is 
only  a  project  by  which  they  are  rendered  incapable  of  forming  an  opin- 
ion. Whenever  government  assumes  to  deliver  us  from  the  trouble  of 
thinking  for  ourselves,  the  only  consequences  it  produces  are  those  of 
torpor,  imbecility.  Wherever  truth  stands  in  the  mind  unaccompanied 
by  the  evidence  upon  which  it  depends,  it  cannot  properly  be  said  to  be 
apprehended  at  all.  The  mind  is  in  this  case  robbed  of  its  essential 
character,  and  genuine  employment,  and  along  with  them  must  be  ex- 
pected to  lose  all  that  is  capable  of  rendering  its  operations  salutary  and 
admirable. 

Either  mankind  will  resist  the  assumptions  of  authority  undertaking 
to  superintend  their  opinions,  and  then  these  assumptions  will  produce 
no  more  than  an  ineflPectual  struggle ;  or  they  will  submit,  and  then  the 
effect  will  be  injurious.  He  that  in  any  degree  consigns  to  another  the 
task  of  dictating  his  opinions  and  his  conduct,  will  cease  to  inquire  for 
himself,  or  his  inquiries  will  be  languid  and  inanimate. 

Regulations  will  originally  be  instituted  in  favor  either  of  falsehood 
or  truth.  In  the  first  case,  no  rational  inquirer  will  pretend  to  allege  any- 
thing in  their  defence;  but,  even  should  truth  be  their  object,  yet  such 
is  their  nature,  that  they  infallibly  defeat  the  very  purpose  they  were  in- 
tended to  serve.  Truth,  when  originally  presented  to  the  mind,  is  pow- 
erful and  invigorating;  but,  when  attempted  to  be  perpetuated  by  polit- 
ical institutions,  becomes  flaccid  and  lifeless.  Truth  in  its  unpatronized 
state  improves  the  understanding;  because  in  that  state  it  is  embraced 
only  so  far  as  it  is  perceived  to  be  true.  But  truth  when  recommended 
by  authority  is  weakly  and  irresolutely  embraced.  The  opinions  I 
entertain  are  no  longer  properly  my  own ;  I  repeat  them  as  a  lesson  ap- 
propriated by  vote,  but  I  do  not,  strictly  speaking,  understand  them, 
and  I  am  not  able  to  assign  the  evidence  upon  which  they  rest.  My 
mind  is  weakened  while  it  is  pretended  to  be  improved.  Instead  of  the 
firmness  of  independence,  I  am  taught  to  bow  to  authority  and  know 
not  why.  Persons  thus  trammeled,  are  not,  strictly  speaking,  capable 
of  a  single  virtue.  The  first  duty  of  man  is,  to  take  none  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  conduct  upon  trust ;  to  do  notliing  without  a  clear  and  individ- 
ual conviction  that  it  is  right  to  be  done.  He  that  resigns  his  under- 
standing upon  one  particular  topic,  will  not  exercise  it  vigorously  upon 
others.  If  he  be  right  in  any  instance,  it  will  be  inadvertently  and  by 
chance.  A  consciousness  of  the  degradation  to  which  he  is  subjected 
will  perpetually  haunt  him;  or  at  least  he  will  want  the  consciousness 
that  accrued  from  independent  consideration,  and  will  therefore  equally 


LACONICS  OF  FREE  INQUIRY  us 

want  that  intrepid  perseverance,  that  calm  self  approbation  that  grows 
out  of  independence.  Such  beings  are  the  mere  dwarfs  and  mockery 
of  men,  their  efforts  comparatively  pusillanimous,  and  the  vigor  with 
which  they  should  execute  their  purposes,  superficial  and  hollow. 

Strangers  to  conviction,  they  will  never  be  able  to  distinguish  between 
prejudice  and  reason.  Nor  is  this  the  worst.  Even  when  the  glimpses 
of  inquiry  suggest  themselves,  they  will  not  dare  to  yield  to  the  tempta- 
tion. To  what  purpose  inquire,  when  the  law  has  told  me  what  to  be- 
lieve, and  what  must  be  the  termination  of  my  inquiries  ?  Even  when 
opinion,  properly  so  called,  suggest  itself,  I  am  compelled,  if  it  difiFer  in 
any  degree  from  the  established  system,  to  shut  my  eyes,  and  loudly 
profess  my  adherence  where  I  doubt  the  most. 

A  system  like  this  does  not  content  itself  with  habitually  unnerving 
the  mind  of  the  great  mass  of  mankind  through  all  its  ranks,  but  provides 
for  its  own  continuance  by  debauching  or  terrifying  the  few  individuals, 
who,  in  the  midst  of  the  general  emasculation,  might  retain  their  curi- 
osity and  love  of  enterprise.  We  may  judge  how  pernicious  it  is  in  its 
operation  in  this  respect,  by  the  long  reign  of  papal  usurpation  in  the 
dark  ages,  and  the  many  attacks  upon  it  that  were  suppressed,  previously 
to  the  successful  one  of  Luther.  Even  yet  how  few  are  there  that  ven- 
ture to  examine  into  the  foundation  of  Mahometanism  and  Christianity, 
in  those  countries  where  those  systems  are  established  by  law ! 

It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  speculative  differences  of  opinion 
threaten  materially  to  disturb  the  peace  of  society.  It  is  only  when  they 
are  enabled  to  arm  themselves  with  authority  of  government,  to  form 
parties  in  the  state,  and  to  struggle  for  that  political  ascendancy  which 
is  too  frequently  exerted  in  support  of  or  in  opposition  to  some  particular 
creed,  that  they  become  dangerous.  Wherever  government  is  wise 
enough  to  maintain  an  inflexible  neutrality,  these  jarring  sects  are  always 
found  to  live  together  with  sufficient  harmony.  The  very  means  that 
have  been  employed  for  the  preservation  of  order,  have  been  the  only 
means  that  have  led  to  its  disturbance.  The  moment  government  re- 
solves to  admit  of  no  regulations  oppressive  to  either  party,  controversy 
finds  its  level,  and  appeals  to  arguments  and  reason,  instead  of  appealing 
to  the  sword  or  to  the  state.  The  moment  government  descends  to  wear 
the  badge  of  a  sect,  religious  war  is  commenced,  the  world  is  disgraced 
with  inexpiable  broils,  and  deluged  with  blood. — Godwin,  "Political 
Justice,"  b.  vi.,  ch.  i.  and  iii. 


SECTION  IV 

PETER   BAYLE:    AN   EXPLANATION    CONCERN- 
ING OBSCENITIES 

[ABOUT  1690] 


[Editorial  Note  :  Peter  Bayle,  one  of  the  most  erudite  men  of  his  century,  was  prompted  to 
write  this  essay  under  the  following  circumstances:  He  had  prepared  and  published  an  elaborate 
Historical  and  Critical  Dictionary  in  five  ponderous  tomes.  Having  a  very  judicial  temperament' 
he  tried  honestly  to  write  history  according  to  the  facts  as  he  found  them.  As  a  result,  he  stated 
the  contentions  of  heretics  as  they  were  made,  and  made  truthful  relation  of  "obscenities"  as 
they  were  displayed  in  the  subjects  deemed  worthy  of  discussion.  By  taking  too  much  liberty 
in  philosophising,  by  the  relation  of  "obscenities,"  and  by  stating  tocf  strongly  the  claims  of  cer- 
tain heretics,  he  gave  offense  to  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.  At  that  time,  no  secular  law  had 
made  the  publication  of  "obscenities"  a  crime,  but  the  author  could  be  subjected  to  church  dis- 
cipline. 

Mr.  Bayle  was  cited  before  the  Consistory  of  the  Church  of  Rotterdam,  and  there  it  was  re- 
quired of  him  that  in  his  next  edition,  then  in  preparation,  some  matters  should  be  omitted  and 
as  to  others  he  should  publish  an  explanation  such  as  would  make  the  offending  matter  appear  to 
the  populace  and  ecclesiastics  in  an  unoffending  light.  The  fourth  and  last  of  these  explanations 
was  that  concerning  "  obscenities,"  now  for  the  first  time  printed  since  1738.  With  a  psychologic 
insight  that  would  Be  creditable  to  a  modern  specialist  in  psychology,  Mr.  Bayle,  in  a  very  analy- 
tical way,  anticipated  and  answered  all  the  arguments  of  our  modern  prudes  of  literature,  and 
in  a  manner,  too,  which  will  stand  almost  as  satisfactory  and  irrefutable  to-day  as  it  did  when 
written  over  two  hundred  years  ago. — ^Theodore  Schboeder. 

When  people  say  that  there  are  Obscenities  in  any  book,  they  may 
understand, 

I.  Either  that  the  author  gives  the  discription  of  his  debaucheries  in 
lewd  terms,  applauds  and  congratulates  himself  for  them,  exhorts  his 
readers  to  plunge  themselves  into  all  manner  of  lewdness,  recommends 
it  to  them  as  the  most  effectual  means  of  leading  a  sweet  and  happy 
life,  and  pretends  that  the  censures  of  the  public  are  to  be  laughed  at, 
and  that  the  maxims  of  virtuous  men  ought  to  be  sUghted  as  old  women's 
tales. 

II.  Or,  that  the  author  relates,  in  a  free  and  gay  style,  some  love' 
adventures,  feigned  as  to  the  substance,  or  at  least  as  to  their  circum- 
stances and  embellishments;  and  introduces  into  his  narrative  several 
immodest  incidences,  which  he  dresses  in  all  the  charms  imaginable, 
in  order  to  make  them  diverting,  and  fitter  to  raise  the  desire  of  love- 
intrigues  than  any  thing  else. 

III.  Or,  that  the  author,  in  order  to  revenge  himself  on  an  unfaithful 
mistress,  or  to  excuse  the  transports  of  his  passion,  or  make  invectives 
against  an  old  courtezan,  or  celebrate  his  friend's  marriage,  or  divert 
himself  with  merry  thoughts,  gives  a  free  scope  to  his  Muse,  and  writes 
Epigrams,  Epithalamiums,  full  of  impure  and  smutty  expressions. 

IV.  Or,  that  the  author,  inveighing  against  lewdness,  describes  it  in 
too  lively,  naked,  and  gross  colours. 

V.  Or,  that  the  author  in  a  tract  of  Physic,  Natural  Philosophy,  or 

114 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  115 

Civil-Law,  expresses  himself  filthily  on  the  subject  of  generation,  or 
the  causes  and  remedies  of  barrenness,  or  the  motives  of  divorce. 

VI.  Or,  that  the  author,  commenting  upon  Catullus,  Petronius,  or 
Martial,  has  inserted  in  his  commentary  several  lewd  discourses  or 
expressions. 

VII.  Or,  that  the  author,  giving  the  History  of  a  sect,  or  person, 
whose  actions  were  infamous,  has  related,  in  too  open  a  manner,  a 
great  many  things  offensive  to  chaste  ears. 

VIII.  Or,  that  the  author,  treating  of  cases  of  conscience,  and  enum- 
erating the  different  species  of  carnal  sin,  has  said  many  things  which 
modesty  cannot  easily  digest. 

IX.  Or,  lastly,  that  the  author  relates  Historical  facts  mentioned 
by  other  authors  whom  he  carefully  cites,  which  facts  are  filthy  and 
immodest,  and  adds  a  commentary  on  his  Historical  narrations  to 
illustrate  them  by  testimonies,  by  reflexions,  and  by  proofs,  in  which 
he  sometimes  alledges  the  words  of  certain  authors  who  have  wrote 
freely,  some  of  them,  as  Physicians,  or  Lawyers;  others,  as  Gallants, 
or  Poets ;  but  he  never  says  any  thing  containing,  either  explicitly,  or 
even  implicitly,  the  approbation  of  impurity;  that,  on  the  contrary,  he 
endeavours,  upon  many  occasions,  to  expose  it  to  our  abhorrence,  and 
to  confute  loose  Morality. 

These,  I  think,  are  the  chief  cases  wherein  a  writer  can  be  charged 
with  venting  obscenities. 

In  the  first  case,  he  deserves  not  only  all  the  severest  punishment 
of  the  Canon-Law,  but  ought  also  to  be  prosecuted  by  the  Magistrate 
as  a  disturber  of  the  public  modesty,  and  a  professed  enemy  to  virtue. 

As  to  those  of  the  second,  third,  fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  seventh,  and 
eighth  classes,  let  every  one  judge  of  them  as  he  pleases ;  I  am  not  con- 
cerned in  them,  mine  being  only  the  ninth  case;  and  it  is  suflicient  for 
me  to  examine  what  concerns  that  ninth  kind  of  obscenity.  However, 
I  will  make  two  or  three  general  reflexions  upon  the  rest. 

II.  I  say  in  the  first  place,  that  there  are  several  degrees  in  the  seven 
classes  of  writers,  whom  I  leave  to  the  reader's  judgment,  A  man  may 
keep  himself  within  certain  bounds,  or  may  exceed  them :  this  prodigi- 
ously varies  the  differences  and  proportions;  and  it  would  be  very 
unjust  to  pronounce  the  same  sentence  against  all  the  writers  of  the 
second  class.  The  hundred  Nouvelles  nouvelles,  those  of  the  Queen  of 
Navarre,  Boccace's  Decameron,  la  Fontaine's  Tales  do  not  deserve  the 
same  rigour  as  Aretin's  Raggionamenti,  and  the  Aloisia  Sigaea  Tole- 
tana.  The  authors  of  these  two  last  works  deserve,  as  well  as  Ovid, 
to  be  placed  in  the  first  class  of  obscene  authors. 

Secondly,  I  observe  that  in  all  times  a  great  number  of  men  have 
agreed  in  condemning  obscenities;  and  yet  this  never  seemed  to  be 
a  decision  of  equal  force  with  the  Civil  Laws,  a  decision  to  which  the 


116  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Poets,  Gommentators,  et  al,  were  obliged  to  conform  on  the  penalty  of 
being  excluded  from  the  ranks  of  honest  men.  The  censurers  of  obscen- 
ities seem  to  be  so  much  the  more  capable  of  terminating  the  question 
by  a  decisive  and  executive  sentence,  in  the  whole  Republic  of  Letters, 
because  they  might  make  up  a  Senate  out  of  all  sorts  of  men.  There 
would  be  in  it  not  only  persons  venerable  for  the  austerity  of  their  lives, 
and  sacred  character,  but  also  military  men,  and  professed  gallants, 
and,  in  a  word,  many  who  give  offence  by  their  voluptuous  life.  This 
is  an  authority  of  great  weight;  for  the  liberty  of  lewd  verses  must 
needs  be  an  ill  thing,  since  it  is  disliked  by  those  very  persons  who 
live  in  debauchery.  But  in  vain  have  obscene  writings  been  exclaimed 
against;  it  has  had  no  effect  to  distinguish  between  honest  and  dishonest 
men.  There  has  always  been  in  the  Republic  of  Letters  a  right  or 
liberty  of  publishing  writings  of  this  nature.  This  right  has  never 
been  liaUe  to  prescription;  several  persons  of  a  distinguished  merit 
have  prevented  it  by  the  freedom  they  have  allowed  themselves  in  such 
sort  of  works ;  and  this  has  brought  no  disgrace  upon  them,  nor  in  any 
ways  incapacitated  them  for  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  honors  and  privi- 
leges belonging  to  their  condition,  nor  prevented  the  preferments  they 
might  hope  for  from  their  fortune. 

He  would  be  laughed  at  who  should  set  about  to  prove  that  Boccace 
was  not  a  man  of  probity,  because  he  wrote  the  Decameron;  or  con- 
clude that  the  Queen  of  Navarre,  sister  to  Francis  I.,  was  not  a  Princess 
of  admirable  virtue,  whose  praises  resounded  everywhere,  because  she 
wrote  the  Novels  of  Gallantry.  Anthony  Panormita  lost  nothing  of 
his  good  fortune  or  his  good  reputation,  by  his  smutty  poem  of  the 
Hermaphrodite.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Benedict  le  Court,  and  the 
famous  Tiraquellus;  the  former  gave  himself  great  Uberty  in  writing  a 
commentary  on  Martial  d'  Auvergne's  Decree  of  Love;  Nonnunquam 
etiam,  says  he  is  in  his  Epistle  Dedicatory  to  a  Counsellor  of  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Paris,  qiwd  in  amore  jocatus  sim  lasciviente  calamo;  and  every 
body  knows  how  many  obscene  collections  Tiraquellus  inserted  in  his 
commentaries  upon  matrimonial  laws.  Did  Scipio  du  Pleix  use  any 
periphrases  or  reserves  in  his  book  called.  La  curiosite  naturelle  redigee 
en  qxicstions  selon  V  ordre  alfhahetique?  Did  he  not  explain  things  in 
the  most  natural  terms  imaginable  ?  What  did  he  lose  by  that  book  ? 
Nothing  at  all.  I  should  never  have  done,  should  I  undertake  to  give 
a  list  of  all  the  Civilians,  who  in  trials  of  adultery,  or  impotency,  have 
alledged  many  obscenities,  without  any  prejudice  to  their  reputation. 
I  have  named  three  or  four,  Anthony  Hotman,  Sebastian  RouUaird, 
Vincent  Tagereau,  and  Annseus  Roberts.  This  is  enough;  let  us  name 
some  persons  of  another  rank. 

The  Dutch  could  not  bear  that  any  body  should  defame  Secundus  as 
a  wicked  and  profligate  man,  or  so  much  as  deny  he  was  an  honest 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  117 

man,  under  pretence  that  he  wrote  very  lascivious  verses.  Ramirez 
de  Prado,  who  wrote  notes  upon  Martial,  printed  at  Paris  with  the 
King's  license  in  the  year  1607,  and  full  of  lewd  explications,  lost  nothing 
by  this  of  his  reputation  or  fortune,  no  more  than  Gonzales  de  Salas  for 
his  commentary  of  the  same  kind  upon  an  obscene  author.  Joubertus, 
Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Montpellier  and  physician  to  the  King 
of  France,  and  to  the  King  of  Navarre,  lost  neither  his  pensions,  nor  his 
honorable  posts,  for  inserting  several  obscenities  in  his  book  of  Vulgar 
Errors.  Nor  is  he  on  that  account  esteemed  a  less  illustrious  and  honest 
man.  Did  Quillet's  Callipa^ia  hinder  him  from  being  recompensed 
with  an  abbey  by  Cardinal  Masarin  ?  Fersmus,  Advocate  in  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Paris,  did  not  find  that  his  merit  was  less  extolled,  or  acknowl- 
edged, after  he  had  wrote  verses  against  Montmaur,  wherein  he  sported 
with  very  obscene  fictions. 

And  to  come  nearer  our  own  time,  was  M.  de  la  Fontaine,  who, 
published  so  many  lewd  tales,  less  caressed  by  every  body  at  court  and 
city  ?  Lords  and  Princes,  the  ladies  of  the  highest  rank,  the  most  illus- 
trious persons  of  the  long  robe,  have  all  courted  and  admired  him.  Was 
he  not  admitted  into  the  French  Academy  ?  And  is  not  that  honour, 
for  a  man  of  his  character,  equivalent  to  a  mareschal's  staff  for  a  mili- 
tary man  ?  I  doubt  not  but  M.  de  la  Reinie  would  have  gladly  enter- 
tained him  at  his  table  the  very  day  that  he  condemned  his  tales;  for 
in  such  books  wise  men  know  how  to  distinguish  between  the  person 
of  the  author,  and  his  writings. 

III.  Let  us  see  whether  the  Protestants  have  been  more  rigid.  I 
do  not  think  that  the  Consistories  ever  thought  of  censuring  Ambrose 
Pare,  whose  Anatomical  books  written  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  were  full 
of  filthy  things.  There  are  many  obscenities  in  Joseph  Scaliger's  com- 
mentaries upon  the  Priapeia,  and  upon  Catallus.  There  are  more  still 
in  Janus  Douza's  commentary  upon  Petronius.  One  of  those  two 
writers  was  Professor  at  Leyden,  and  the  other  was  one  of  the  Curators 
of  that  university.  They  did  not  lose  upon  that  account  their  credit, 
and  the  great  esteem  they  were  in ;  and  though  Beza  mightily  exclaimed 
against  them  in  an  Epistle  Dedicatory  to  the  States-General,  his  out- 
cries were  not  minded.  Daniel  Heinsius,  Professor  in  the  same  uni- 
versity, enjoyed  all  the  honours  he  could  pretend  to;  he  was  one  of  the 
Secretaries  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  received  on  a  thousand  occasions 
several  proofs  of  the  esteem  they  had  for  his  person;  and  yet  he  pub- 
lished some  poems  that  are  far  from  being  modest.  What  he  and 
Scriverius  called  Baudii  amores,  is  a  very  wanton  collection;  and  it  is 
to  be  observed,  that  Scriverius  was  a  man  of  merit,  and  of  great  note 
among  the  learned  in  Holland.  Notwithstanding  Besa's  exhortation, 
Theodore  de  Juges  put  out  an  edition  of  Petronius  with  his  Prolegomena, 
wherein  he  endeavored  to  justify  those  who  explain  the  obscenities  of 


118  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

that  Roman  author.  It  does  not  appear  that  Theodore  de  Juges  did 
suffer  in  his  reputation  or  fortune  upon  that  account.  He  was  a  Prot- 
estant, and  some  persons  of  his  family  were  Counsellors  in  the  court  of 
Castres,  whose  members  were  one-half  Protestants  and  the  other 
Roman  Catholics;  and  he  spent  a  considerable  part  of  his  life  at  Geneva. 
Goldstus  had  enjoyed  the  same  impunity  after  his  edition  of  Petronius 
which  he  published  with  his  Prolegemena,  wherein  he  undertook  to 
justify  the  reading  of  such  an  author,  and  made  a  particular  answer  to 
'Beza's  reflexions.  Shall  I  say  that  the  famous  d'  Aubigne  was  very 
much  respected  at  Geneva,  though  the  cynical  liberty  of  his  pen  was  a 
notorious  thing?  Shall  I  observe  that  the  consistory  of  Charenton 
never  had  any  thought  of  complaining  of  Dr.  Menjot,  though  his  writings 
concerning  Physic  are  intermixed  with  many  obscene  things  ?  Shall 
I  add,  that  Isaac  Vossius  being  a  Canon  of  Hindsor,  when  he  published 
a  book  full  of  filthy  things,  the  Dean  and  the  Chapter  did  not  meet  to 
inflict  upon  him  even  the  slightest  punishment,  viz.,  that  of  being 
reprimanded  ? 

It  is  therefore  no  wonder  if  the  faction  contrary  to  those  who  condemn 
obscenities,  did  always  maintain  itself  in  the  Republic  of  Letters;  for 
besides  their  alledging  several  reasons  for  their  opinions,  they  shelter 
themselves  under  the  authority  of  several  examples.  You  may  see 
these  reasons  and  these  examples  in  the  Prolegomena  of  Goldsstus  upon 
Petronius.  All  those  who  have  apologized  for  the  authors  who  as 
Physicians,  or  as  Casuists,  advance  obscene  things,  alledge  reasons 
against  reasons,  and  authorities  against  authorities.  They  want  neither 
great  names  nor  grave  authorities,  magna  fe  judice  quisque  tuetur.  But 
do  not  think  that  I  suppose  that  their  reasons  and  those  of  their  adver- 
saries have  an  equal  force.  I  have  declared  in  several  places,  that  I 
absolutely  condemn  Catullus's  obscenities,  and  those  of  his  imitators, 
and  the  excessive  freedom  of  the  Casuists;  and  I  add  now,  that  the 
arguments  alledged  by  those  who  plead  for  the  liberty  of  inserting 
obscenities  in  an  epigram,  seem  to  me  very  weak,  if  compared  with  the 
contrary  arguments.  I  further  add,  that  an  obscenity  softened,  and 
meant  only  as  jest,  seems  to  me  to  be  more  blamable  than  a  very  obscene 
invective  designed  to  create  an  abhorrence  for  impurity. 

IV.  For  I  say  in  the  third  place,  that  if  any  one  should  alledge  that 
it  were  better  for  the  writers  of  these  seven  classes,  to  apply  themselves 
only  to  serious  matters,  and  to  treat  them  all  with  the  modesty  required 
by  the  gospel,  he  would  depart  from  the  state  of  the  question.  This 
afivice,  though  very  good  in  itself,  is  not  pertinent  on  this  occasion, 
since  they  might  answer  that  the  question  is  not  whether  they  have 
chosen  the  good  part,  and  whether  they  have  made  the  best  use  they 
could  make  of  their  leisure  and  pen,  but  only  whether  they  have  taken  a 
liberty  condemned,  upon  pain  of  ignominy,  by  the  statutes  of  the  Repub- 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  119 

lie  of  Letters,  the  regulations  of  civil  policy,  and  the  laws  of  the  state. 
They  would   readily  acknowledge   that  they  could  not   avoid    being 
condemned,  if  they  were  judged  by  the  laws  of  the  gospel;   but  they 
would  maintain  that  all  writers  are  in  the  same  case,  some  more,  some 
less,  there  being  none  but  may  be  told  that  he  might  have  employed 
himself  in  a  more  Christian-like  manner  than  he  has  done;  for,  to  give 
an  instance  of  it,  a  Divine  who  has  spent  all  his  time  in  writing  com- 
mentaries upon  the  Scripture,  might  have  made  a  more  pious  use  of  it. 
Had  it  not  been  better  for  him  to  divide  the  day  between  mental  prayer 
and  works  of  charity  ?    Why  did  he  not  spend  part  of  the  day  in  medi- 
tating upon  the  greatness  of  God,  and  the  four  last  things  ?    Why  did 
he  not  spend  the  other  in  going  from  one  Hospital  to  another  to  relieve 
the  poor,  and  from  house  to  house,  to  comfort  afflicted  persons  and 
instruct  little  children  ?    Since  therefore  no  man,  will  they  say,  can  give 
a  good  account  of  his  time  at  the  severe  tribunal  of  the  Divine  justice, 
and  every  body  stands  in  need  of  mercy  on  account  of  many  useless 
things,  and  for  having  erroneously  chosen  what  was  not  the  most  neces- 
sary part,  we   appeal    to  another  jurisdiction,  and  desire  it  may  be 
enquired  whether  we  have  done  anything  for  which  in  the  Judgment  of 
the  Public,  and  before  the  tribunal  of  the  magistrates,  we  deserve  to  lose 
the  title  of  good  men,  and  to  be  deprived  of  the  rank  and  privileges  of 
men  of  honour.     We  desire  a  thing,  would  they  say,  which  cannot  be 
refused  to  several  virtuous  women  who  go  to  plays  and  to  balls,  who  love 
gaming  and  fine  clothes,  and  who  have  such  regard  for  their  beauty  that 
they  carefully  study  what  ornaments  will  set  it  off  to  the  best  advantage. 
They  know  very  well  that  their  conduct  is  not  agreeable  to  the  precepts 
of  the  gospel ;  but  whilst  they  do  nothing  else  they  may  lawfully  pretend 
to  the  quality,  rank,  and  privileges  of  virtuous  women.     They  deserve  to 
be  censured  by  the  Preachers  and  the  Christian  Moralists,  I  grant  it; 
but  till  the  public,  or  the  magistrates,  have  fixed  a  note  of  infamy  upon 
such  a  course  of  life,  they  cannot  be  called  bad  women;   and  whoever 
should  call  them  so,  would  be  obliged  to  make  them  a  public  satisfaction. 
They  may  alledge  the  practice  of  all  ages,  since  there  have  been  at  all 
times  many  virtuous  women  who  loved  gaming,  plays,  balls,  and  jewels, 
and,  after  all,  they  do  not  offend  against  the  civil  Laws,  nor  against  the 
rules  of  human  honour,  and  are  not  guilty  of  that  kind  of  disorder  which 
is  the  peculiar  character  of  gallant  women.     Poets,  who  in  an  Epithala- 
mium  make  too  naked  a  discription  of  a  wedding-night,  may  alledge  the 
same  reason — they  will  own  that  their  Muse  might  have  pitched  upon  a 
more  laudable  subject,  and  that  the  composition  of  a  Christian  sonnet 
was  preferable  to  that;  but  this  very  composure  would  not  have  been  the 
best  thing  they  could  have  done.     It  had  been  better  for  them  to  spend 
their  time  in  praying,  and  serving  the  poor  in  Hospitals,  Etc.     There 
is  hardly  any  business  but  what  may  be  blamed  for  this  reason,  that  a 


1«0  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

better  one  might  have  been  pitched  upon ;  and  of  all  the  occupations  of 
this  life,  there  is  hardly  any  that  is  more  blamable,  if  we  judge  of 
it  by  the  rules  of  religion,  than  that  which  is  most  common;  I  mean  the 
occupation  of  those  who  endeavour  to  get  money  either  by  trading  or 
other  fair  means.  Humanly  speaking,  the  most  lawful  means  of  grow- 
ing rich  are  contrary,  not  only  to  the  Spirit  of  the  gospel,  but  also  to  the 
literal  prohibitions  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  And  therefore  it 
highly  concerns  aU  men  that  God  should  be  merciful  to  them  for  not 
making  the  best  use  of  their  time.  The  Poets  I  speak  of,  having  laid 
down  this  principle,  add,  that  they  only  tread  in  the  steps  of  many 
persons  illustrious  for  their  virtue  and  wisdom;  that  the  liberty  they 
take  always  prevailed  among  honest  men ;  that  if  it  had  been  laid  aside 
for  some  ages  as  the  peculiar  character  of  debauchery,  they  could  not  be 
excused ;  but  that  it  will  appear  they  may  claim  the  right  of  possession, 
and  that  a  thing  which  has  been  practised  by  so  many  honest  men 
cannot  be  accounted  dishonest.  This  is  a  maxim  of  Pliny  on  the  present 
question.  He  was  one  of  the  greatest  wits,  and  one  of  the  most  honest 
men  of  his  time;  he  made  some  verses  that  were  thought  to  be  somewhat 
impudent,  and  was  blessed  for  it;  he  alledged  many  great  examples  in 
his  vindication,  and  would  not  instance  the  Emperor  Nera,  though, 
said  he,  I  am  not  ignorant  that  things  do  not  grow  worse,  because  they 
are  sometimes  practised  by  wicked  men,  but  they  continue  to  be  honest 
when  they  are  often  practised  by  honest  men. 

This  much  for  the  Poets.  Now  I  must  observe  in  a  few  words  that 
the  authors  belonging  to  the  other  classes  above  mentioned,  may  allege 
the  same  reasons.  Nay,  some  of  them  may  say  something  more  spe- 
cious :  A  natural  Philosopher,  for  instance,  and  a  Physician,  may  main- 
tain, that  their  profession  requires  they  should  explain  what  concerns 
generation,  barrenness,  the  green  sickness,  a  woman's  delivery,  and  the 
furor  nterinus,  as  well  as  fermentation,  and  what  concerns  the  Spleen, 
the  Gout,  Etc.  A  Casuist  will  say,  that  it  is  no  less  necessary  that 
confessors  and  penitents  should  be  informed  of  the  several  ways  of 
offending  against  chastity,  than  of  the  several  frauds  that  are  committed 
in  purchases. 

At  least  we  ought  to  do  those  authors  the  justice  they  claim,  viz.,  not 
to  judge  of  their  morals  by  their  writings.  No  necessary  consequences 
can  be  drawn  from  either  of  those  two  things  to  the  other.  Some  Poets 
are  chaste  in  their  verses,  and  in  their  morals;  some  are  chaste  neither  in 
their  ver.ses  nor  in  their  morals;  some  are  chaste  only  in  their  verses, 
and  some  are  not  chaste  in  their  verses,  but  they  are  so  in  their  morals, 
and  all  their  fire  lies  in  their  heads.  All  the  wanton  strokes  of  their  epi- 
grams are  only  witty  conceits;  their  Candida's  and  their  Lesbia's  are 
fictitious  mistresses.     The  Protestants  cannot  deny  it  of  Beza,  since  he 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  121 

declares  that  he  lived  a  regular  life  when  he  wrote  the  Poems,  intitled 
Juvenilia,  of  which  he  did  so  much  repent. 

V.  After  these  general  observations,  I  shall  proceed  to  the  examina- 
tion of  what  concerns  this  Dictionary;  and  the  first  thing  I  shall  observe 
upon  this  head  is,  that  if  those  observations  are  not  looked  upon  as  a 
solid  justification,  I  shall  not  be  prejudiced  by  it;  but  if  they  are  approved 
as  such,  they  will  be  of  great  use  to  me.  I  am  in  far  better  circumstances 
than  all  the  authors  I  have  mentioned ;  for  though  Catullus,  Lucretius, 
Juvenal,  and  Suetonius  be  never  so  much  condemned,  a  writer  who 
cites  them  cannot  be  blamed  for  it.  Those  authors  are  to  be  had 
in  all  the  Booksellers'  shops;  the  passages  quoted  out  of  them  cannot 
be  more  dangerous  than  they  are  in  those  authors  themselves;  and 
there  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  first  authors  of  an  obscenity,  and 
those  who  mention  it  only  as  the  proof  of  a  fact,  or  of  an  ailment  which 
the  subject  in  hand  obliges  them  to  alledge.  Granting  that  Joubertus 
expressed  himself  too  immodestly,  does  it  follow  from  thence  that  I 
could  not  alledge  his  authority  when  I  was  to  criticise  a  very  weak 
argument  alledged  against  those  who  accused  the  Physician  Herlicius 
of  lewdness  ?  However  it  be,  if  the  excuses  alledged  in  favor  of  Sueto- 
nius, Joubertus,  etal.,  are  good  and  solid,  so  much  the  better  for  me; 
if  they  are  not  good,  it  can  do  me  no  prejudice;  my  case  is  different  from 
theirs,  and  much  better.  By  the  argument  a  fortiori  what  they  may  say 
in  their  vindication  may  be  alledged  by  me  with  greater  reason;  and 
what  is  a  weak  argument  for  them,  may  be  a  very  strong  one  for  me. 
You  need  only  compare  together  the  nine  classes  I  have  mentioned, 
and  you  will  find  that  the  last,  which  suits  my  work,  is  less  liable  to  a 
just  censure. 

This  will  more  clearly  appear,  if  to  what  I  said  above  concerning 
the  nature  of  my  case,  I  add  this  consideration,  viz.:  That  I  have  avoided 
three  things  that  might  have  occasioned  just  complaint. 

In  the  first  place,  whenever  I  have  said  any  thing  as  my  own,  I  have 
avoided  all  words  and  expressions  that  are  contrary  to  common  civility 
and  decency.  This  is  sufficient  in  a  work  of  this  nature,  intermixed  with 
Historical  narratives,  and  all  sorts  of  discussions;  for  to  pretend  that 
a  compilation  which  is  to  contain  matters  of  Literature,  Law,  or  Natural 
Philosophy,  according  to  the  various  subjects  treated  on,  ought  to  be 
w-ritten  according  to  the  most  strict  rules  of  decency  observed  in  a 
sermon,  or  in  a  book  of  devotion,  or  a  novel,  would  be  confounding 
things,  and  setting  up  a  kind  of  tyranny  over  men's  minds.  A  word 
that  would  be  thought  unbecoming  in  the  mouth  of  a  preacher,  and  in 
a  small  romance  designed  for  the  entertainment  of  the  ladies,  would  not 
appear  so  in  a  case  written  by  a  lawyer,  nor  in  the  verbal  process  of  a 
Physician,  nor  in  a  book  of  Natural  Philosophy,  nor  even  in  a  piece  of 
Literature,  or  in  the  faithful  translation  of  a  Latin  Book,  such  as  for 


12«  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

instance,  the  relation  of  Abelard's  misfortune.  It  is  therefore  certain, 
that  there  are  several  degrees  of  decency,  with  respect  to  the  style:  the 
highest  degrees  belong  to  some  writers,  and  not  to  all.  If  an  ingenious 
man  was  desired  by  some  ladies  to  write  a  romantic  History  of  Jupiter's 
or  Hercules's  adventures,  he  would  do  well  never  to  use  the  words, 
to  geld,  to  deflower,  to  get  with  child,  to  lie  with  nym.'ph,  to  rairish  her; 
he  should  either  lay  aside  the  particulars  that  might  excite  these  ideas, 
or  keep  them  at  a  distance  by  general  and  enigmatical  expressions. 
But  if  the  writers  of  an  Historical  Dictionar}%  wherein  the  reader  expects 
to  find  an  exact  translation  of  what  is  to  be  found  in  the  ancient  Myth- 
ology concerning  Jupiter's  adventures,  used  long  circuits,  and  far- 
fetched expressions,  whereby  the  fate  of  some  nymphs  might  be  guessed 
at,  they  would  be  accounted  finical  and  ridiculous.  They  do  not  offend 
against  decency,  provided  they  keep  within  the  bounds  of  common  civ- 
ility ;  that  is,  provided  they  abstain  from  such  words  as  are  used  by  the 
rabble,  and  which  even  a  debauchee  carefully  avoids  in  a  serious  con- 
versation. 

They  may  boldly  use  all  the  words  that  are  to  be  found  in  the  Dic- 
tionary of  the  French  Academy,  and  in  that  of  Furetiere,  unless  the 
authors  of  these  Dictionaries  give  notice  that  those  words  are  odious 
and  obscene.  This  is  the  first  thing  I  have  observed;  viz.,  that  I  keep 
to  the  rules  of  common  decency  when  I  say  any  thing  as  my  own.  I 
now  proceed  to  give  an  account  of  the  course  I  have  taken  as  to  passages 
quoted  by  me  out  of  other  authors. 

I  have  avoided, \ in  the  second  place,  to  express  in  our  language  the 
meaning  of  a  quotation,  which  contained  some  immodest  thing,  and 
have  set  it  down  only  in  Latin.  The  passages  I  cite  out  of  Bran  tome 
and  Montague  are  not  the  most  offensive  which  may  be  found  in  those 
authors;  and  I  may  say  the  same  with  respect  to  D'Aubigne,  and  other 
French  writers  somewhat  too  free,  whom  I  have  sometimes  quoted  to 
prove  what  I  said. 

In  the  third  place,  I  have  avoided  mentioning,  in  any  language 
whatsoever,  such  things  as  had  a  character  of  extravagancy  and  enor- 
mity unknown  to  the  vulgar;  and  I  have  quoted  nothing  out  of  certain 
books  that  are  little  known,  and  which  I  rather  leave  in  darkness  than 
excite  the  desire  of  buying  them,  in  those  who  should  find  them  cited 
in  this  work.  I  never  cited  on  this  subject  any  authors  but  such  as  may 
be  had  every  where,  and  are  reprinted  almost  every  year.  I  could 
name  a  very  honest  man,  who  never  was  a  debauchee,  who  wrote  from 
I>ondon  to  one  of  his  friends  that  he  expected  to  find  quite  other  things 
in  my  Dictionar\-,  from  the  clamours  of  certain  people. 

I  imagined,  said  he,  that  it  contained  unknown  obscenities,  but  I 
could  find  nothing  in  it  but  myself  and  my  companions  knew  before  we 
were  eighteen  years  old. 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  123 

After  what  has  been  said,  it  will  be  no  difficult  matter  to  know  whether 
I  have  been  justly  or  wrongfully  blamed.  The  whole  affair  may  be 
reduced  to  these  two  points, 

1.  Whether  I  am  liable  to  censure,  because  I  have  not  sufficiently 
wrapped  up  in  ambiguous  periphrases  the  obscene  facts  which  have 
been  found  in  History.  2.  Whether  I  am  wholly  to  blame,  because  I 
have  not  wholly  suppressed  those  facts. 

VI,  The  first  of  these  two  questions,  properly  speaking,  belongs 
only  to  the  Grammarians — Morality  is  not  concern«J  in  the  matter; 
the  civil  Magistrates  have  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Nihil  boecaad  edictum 
proptoris;  neither  are  the  Moralists  or  the  Casuists  concerned  in  it.  If 
an  action  was  to  be  brought  against  me,  it  could  relate  only  to  the 
unpoliteness  of  my  stile;  whereupon  I  would  appeal  to  the  French 
Academy,  as  the  proper  and  competent  judge  of  such  causes.  I  am 
sure  those  gentlemen  would  not  condemn  me;  otherwise  they  would 
condemn  themselves,  since  all  the  words  I  make  use  of  are  to  be  found 
in  their  Dictionary,  without  any  note  of  dishonour.  When  they  do  not 
declare  that  a  word  is  obscene,  all  writers  are  thereby  authorized  to  use 
it;  I  mean  such  words  as  they  have  defined.  But  further,  I  should 
readily  consent  to  be  condemned  by  them;  for  I  do  not  pretend  to 
politeness  of  stile;  I  have  declared  in  my  preface  that  my  stile  is  very 
incorrect,  and  not  free  from  expressions  either  improper  or  which  begin  to  be 
obsolete,  or  even  from  barbarisms,  and  in  these  respects  I  am  not  very 
scrupulous.  Why  should  I  pretend  to  it,  since  several  famous  authors, 
who  lived  at  Paris,  and  were  members  of  the  French  Academy,  did  not 
care  for  it  ?  Why  should  a  man  hamper  himself  in  a  book  designed  for 
things,  and  not  for  words,  and  which,  containing  all  sorts  of  matters, 
some  serious,  and  others  ludicrous,  necessarily  requires  one  should  use 
various  sorts  of  expressions  ?  The  author  of  such  a  work  needs  not  to 
be  cautious  as  a  preacher;  and  though  the  latter  ought,  in  the  pulpit, 
to  avoid  this  phrase.  They  who  get  a  maid  with  child,  ought  either  to 
marry  her,  or  give  her  a  portion,  yet  he  may  use  it  without  any  indecency 
in  a  book  concerning  cases  of  conscience.  So  true  it  is,  that  an  author 
may  express  himself  differently,  according  to  the  nature  of  his  books. 

But  if  any  thing  can  excuse  the  writers  who  have  no  regard  to  I  know 
not  what  refined  delicacy  which  increases  every  day,  it  is  this,  that  there 
will  be  no  end  of  it;  for,  in  order  to  act  consistently,  a  vast  number  of 
words  which  the  French  tongue  cannot  be  without,  must  be  accounted 
obscene;  and  the  writers  who  pretend  to  be  so  nice  may  easily  be 
convicted  of  absurdity.  It  may  be  proved  to  them  that,  according  to 
their  principles,  there  are  no  precise  or  foppish  women,  and  that  those 
whom  we  call  so  are  very  reasonable  and  argue  consequentially.  I 
desire  them  to  tell  me,  why  the  verb  to  geld  appears  obscene  to  them. 
Is  it  not  because  it  offers  an  obscene  object  to  our  imagination  ?     But 


124  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

for  the  same  reason  the  word  adultery  cannot  be  pronounced  without 
a  greater  obscenity.  Thus  this  word  must  be  banished.  There  will 
be  a  necessity  to  banish  likewise  the  words  marriage,  wedding-day, 
bride's  bed,  and  a  vast  number  of  such  expressions,  which  excite  very 
obscene  ideas,  and  incomparably  more  offensive  than  that,  at  which 
the  precise  lady  in  one  of  Moliere's  plays  was  so  much  offended.  For 
my  part,  uncle,  says  she,  all  that  I  can  say  is,  that  marriage  seems  to  me 
to  be  a  very  shocking  thing.  How  can  a  woman  endure  the  thought  of 
lying  by  a  naked  man?  According  to  the  principles  of  our  Purists, 
nothing  could  be  more  reasonable  than  such  a  discourse,  and  every 
virtuous  maid  should  turn  out  of  her  chamber  all  persons  who  should 
come  and  tell  her  of  a  design  to  marry  her.  She  might  justly  complain 
that  they  have  so  little  regard  for  her  modesty  as  to  offer  to  her  a  fright- 
ful obscenity  without  any  veil  or  disguise.  To  ask  a  married  woman 
whether  she  has  had  any  children,  would  be  a  monstrous  obscenity; 
politeness  would  require  that  we  should  use  figurative  expressions,  and 
imitate,  for  instance,  the  finical  lady,  who  said,  "That  her  companion 
had  given  into  lawful  love  [ivhich  was  marriage],  and  that  she  knew  not 
how  she  could  resolve  to  taste  brutish  pleasures  with  a  man;  that  she 
had  done  it  to  leave  behind  her  some  traces  of  herself,  that  is,  some 
children.'" 

According  to  the  notions  of  the  Purists,  it  would  be  a  veny  reasonable 
thing  to  exclaim  against  Moliere's  School  of  Women,  with  all  the  fury 
he  has  so  handsomely  ridiculed,  and  which  is,  at  the  bottom,  a  down- 
right extravagance.  Every  virtuous  person  should  say  that  expression, 
Children  coming  out  through  the  ear,  is  abominable.  .  .  .  Can  one 
tliat  has  any  virtue,  be  pleased  with  a  piece  that  keeps  modesty  in  a  constant 
alarm,  and  continually  defiles  the  imagination?  .  .  .  I  positively  affirm 
that  an  honest  woman  cannot  see  that  play  without  being  put  to  shame, 
I  have  discovered  so  many  lewd  and  filthy  things  in  it.  .  .  .  Those 
obscenities,  God  be  thanked,  appear  barefaced,  they  have  not  the  least 
covering;  The  boldest  eyes  are  frightened  at  their  nakedness.  .  .  .  That 
passage  of  the  scene,  wherein  Agnes  mentions  what  was  got  from  her,  is 
more  than  sufficient  to  prove  what  I  say.  .  .  .  Fy!  .  .  .1  repeat  it 
again,  tlie  filthy  things  of  that  piece  fly  into  one's  face.  .  .  .  Is  not  modesty 
visibly  offended  by  what  Agnes  says  in  the  place  we  speak  of?  If  Urania 
ventured  to  answer,  "Not  at  all.  Agnes  does  not  say  a  word  but  what 
is  very  modest;  and  if  you  will  have  it  that  she  means  something  else, 
the  obscenity  proceeds  from  you,  and  not  from  her,  for  she  speaks  only 
of  a  ribbon  that  one  got  from  her" — the  following  answer  would  be  a 
wise  one:  '  'Ah,  you  may  talk  of  a  ribbon  as  much  as  you  please;  but 
that  my  where  she  stops,  was  not  put  there  for  nothing;  it  occasions 
strange  thoughts;  that  my  is  furiously  scandalous;  and,  say  what  you 
will,  you  can  never  justify  the  insolence  of  that  my.  .  .  .  There  is  an 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  125 

Intolerable  obscenity  in  it."  That  discourse,  though  never  so  imperti- 
nent, would  be  proper  and  honest,  according  to  this  principle.  All  words 
which  defile  the  imagination,  that  is  to  say,  which  denote  an  obscene 
object,  ought  to  be  laid  aside.  According  to  this  principle,  all  those  who 
have  some  modesty  would  be  like  the  Marquise  Araminta,  whose 
character  is  as  follows :  "  She  says  everywhere  it  is  a  horrid  piece,  and 
she  could  never  endure  the  obscenities  it  is  stuffed  with.  .  .  .  She 
follows  the  ill  example  of  those  women  who,  being  in  the  decline  of 
their  age,  have  a  mind  to  supply  what  they  are  losing,  by  something 
else;  and  would  have  the  grimaces  of  a  scrupulous  prudery  serve  them 
instead  of  youth  and  beauty.  This  lady  carries  the  thing  farther  than 
any  body  else,  and  is  so  nicely  scrupulous  that  she  finds  obscenities  where 
no  body  else  had  discovered  any.  It  is  said  her  scruples  are  such  as 
will  disfigure  our  language,  and  that  there  are  hardly  any  words  but 
what  she  would  curtail,  either  at  the  beginning  or  end,  by  reason  of  the 
immodest  syllables  she  finds  out  in  them." 

I  think  I  have  read  somewhere  that  preciseness  has  been  carried 
so  far  that  ladies  would  not  say,  T  'ai  mange  des  consitures,  but  des  sit- 
ures.  At  this  rate,  above  one-half  of  the  words  of  the  Dictionary  of  the 
French  Academy  should  be  struck  out,  and  then  the  rest  would  be  in- 
significant, for  they  would  want  a  connexion;  and  thus  we  should  be 
obliged  to  explain  ourselves  by  signs  only,  which  would  occasion  more 
scandalous  and  more  dangerous  obscenities  than  those  that  come  into 
one's  ears.  Here  follows  a  passage  of  the  Chevropana,  whereby  my 
assertion  will  be  extremely  well  confirmed : 

A  lady  who  has  a  great  deal  of  wit,  but  is  too  finical,  told  me  one 
day  she  never  used  any  words  which  might  excite  an  obscene  idea,  and 
that  when  she  was  in  company  with  polite  people  she  said,  Un  fond  d ' 
Artichaut;  un  fond  d'  Chapeau;  une  rue  qui  n'a  point  de  sortie,  for  what 
we  call  un  Cul  de  sac.  I  told  her  she  did  very  well,  and  that  I  would  not 
fail  to  do  the  same.  However,  I  added,  that  on  some  occasions  we  were 
obliged  to  speak  like  others.  She  very  civilly  desired  me  to  give  her  any 
instances  of  it;  and  I  asked  her  how  she  called  in  common  conversation 
a  piece  that  is  worth  sixty  pence.  Sixty  pence,  replies  she.  But  madam, 
how  do  you  call  that  letter  of  the  alphabet  that  comes  next  to  P  ?  She 
blushed,  and  at  the  same  time  replied.  Truly,  Sir,  I  did  not  think  you 
would  bring  me  back  to  my  a,  b,  c.  You  see  Mr.  Chevreau  approves 
that  we  should  never  use  any  words  which  may  excite  an  obscene  idea; 
and  by  virtue  of  that  principle,  he  is  of  opinion  that  we  should  never  say, 
un  Cul  de  sac.  He  must  therefore  strike  out  not  only  above  two  pages 
of  Furetiere  's  Dictionary,  corrected  by  one  of  the  politest  writers  of  our 
days,  but  also  a  vast  number  of  words  whose  first  syllable  excites  more 
immodest  ideas  than  the  syllable  Cul.  He  must  also  banish  the  words 
adultery,  famicatim,  incontinence,  and  a  thousand  more;  but  as  rigid  as 


126  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

he  is  with  respect  to  obscene  words,  he  was  not  willing  to  grant  upon  one 
single  point  what  that  precise  lady  required ;  therefore,  he  was  not  con- 
fident with  himself.  But  let  us  forgive  him  that  inconsistency;  for  the 
consequences  of  his  assertion  are  so  absurd,  and  so  impracticable,  that 
he  is  not  to  blame  for  not  keeping  to  them.  His  only  fault  lies  in  not 
perceiving  the  falsity  of  a  principle  whereof  the  most  necessary  conse- 
quences are  absurd,  and  plainly  tend  to  the  destruction  of  the  use  of 
speech.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  there  are  some  ladies  as  virtuous  as 
that  precise  woman,  who  do  not  scruple  to  say,  Cul  d'  Articliaut,  and 
Old  de  sac.  This  you  may  see  in  a  passage  of  Costar;  which  has  a  great 
affinity  with  the  subject  in  hand. 

I  have  already  observed  that  it  is  impossible  to  satisfy  the  Purists, 
against  whom  I  am  writing.  The  ground  they  go  upon  will  make  them 
lay  aside,  whenever  they  please,  abundance  of  words  not  yet  condemned 
by  them,  which,  according  to  their  maxims,  do  not  less  deserve  to  be  re- 
jected than  those  which  they  have  actually  laid  aside.  There  is  no 
avoiding  their  censure.  Though  you  relate  things  in  modest  words,  as 
has  been  done  in  the  second  volume  of  the  Menagiana,  they  will  say 
that  there  are  some  passages  in  it  plainly  contrary  to  modesty,  which  can 
not  be  read  without  Jwrror,  by  virtuous  persons.  Could  Father  Bouhours 
avoid  being  criticized,  though  in  his  French  translation  of  the  Gospels 
he  took  all  possible  care  to  lay  aside  every  word  that  might  appear  never 
so  little  unbecoming  ?  Was  not  M.  Boileau  whom  the  illustrious  President 
de  la  Moignon  often  commended  for  having  purged  satirical  poetry  from 
tlu  obscenity  which  till  then  had  been,  as  it  were,  peculiar  to  it,  charged 
with  smuttiness  for  having  used  the  words  Embryon,  voix  lujmrieu^e, 
morale  lubrique?  If  such  words  cannot  be  admitted,  there  will  be  no 
end  of  censuring. 

I  know  several  persons  who  blame  Mezerai  for  saying  that  some 
sparks,  who  had  committed  adultery,  were  mutilated  in  the  parts  wherein 
tJiey  had  offended.  Their  censure  is  grounded  upon  these  two  reasons : 
One  is,  that  there  has  no  need  to  mention  a  circumstance  which  offers 
such  an  obscene  object;  the  other  is,  that  he  should  at  least  have  omitted 
all  the  words  after  mutilated,  that  word  being  sufficient  to  express  the 
thing.  I  desire  those  Critics  not  to  take  it  ill  of  me  if  I  believe  that  the 
circumstance  which  they  say  should  have  been  omitted,  is  one  of  those 
which  an  Historian  ought  never  to  forget;  for  if  there  is  any  thing  extra- 
ordinary in  the  punishment  infficted  upon  a  malefactor,  it  ought  to  be 
particularly  mentioned.  The  second  Remark  does  not  appear  to  me 
better.  A  sentence  of  death  may  import  that  a  malefactor's  hands, 
nose,  or  ears  shall  be  cut  off,  before  he  be  put  to  death;  and  therefore 
the  word  mutilated  would  not  sufficiently  express  the  circumstance  which 
Mezerai  was  to  inform  us  of.  But  supposing  that  this  word  is  sufficient, 
does  it  follow  from  thence  that  the  addition  of  the  rest  is  a  fault  ?     Do 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  127 

not  we  commonly  say,  /  have  seen  it  with  my  own  eyes,  tic.  There  are 
several  needless  words  in  such  phrases,  and  yet  no  body  finds  fault  with 
them.  Lastly,  I  say  that  those  Critics  contradict  themselves;  they  blame 
this  addition  as  being  unnecessarj'  only,  the  thing,  say  they,  had  been 
well  enough  understood  without  it.  They  are  not  therefore  against 
oflFering  an  obscene  image  to  the  mind,  they  would  only  have  two  or 
three  needless  sounds  omitted.  Their  zeal  for  purity  would  have  been 
edifying  had  they  been  altogether  against  the  use  of  any  thing  in  History 
that  may  excite  an  obscene  idea;  but  they  allow  of  it,  provided  it  be 
done  without  any  needless  words.  Thus  they  destroy  in  this  last  Re- 
mark what  might  have  been  edifying  in  the  first.  Such  is  the  nice  taste 
of  our  Purists,  they  blame  one  expression,  and  approve  another,  though 
they  equally  oflFer  the  same  obscenity  to  the  mind  ?  The  observations 
printed  at  Paris  in  the  year  1700,  against  Mezerai,  will  be  very  accept- 
able to  those  Critics.  See  the  margin.  He  is  blamed  in  that  book  for 
commonly  using  tJie  words  concubine,  bastard,  and  adultery,  which  are 
inconsistent  with  tJie  Niceness  of  our  age.  I  am  sure  they  would  not 
condemn  the  words  favorite,  natural  son,  and  conjugal  infidelity,  which 
have  the  same  signification.     How  inconsistently  do  they  argue! 

IX.  The  new  whims  of  those,  who,  as  I  am  told,  b^n  to  reckon  the 
words  glister  and  physic  among  obscene  terms,  and  use  the  general  w'ord 
remedy  in  their  room,  would  be  less  unreasonable.  The  word  distere 
(glister)  was  laid  aside,  as  including  too  many  circumstances  of  the  oper- 
ation, and  the  word  lavement  took  its  place  as  having  a  more  general 
signification.  But  because  the  idea  of  the  word  lavement  is  become 
specific,  and  takes  in  too  many  circumstances,  it  \^'ill  be  quickly  laid 
aside  for  fear  of  sullying  the  imagination,  and  none  but  general  phrases 
will  be  used,  such  as  T  'otois  dans  les  remedes,  un  remede  lui  sut  ordonne, 
&c.,  which  do  not  more  particularly  denote  a  glister  or  a  purge,  than  a 
bag  of  herbs  hung  about  the  neck.  These  are  certainly  very  strange 
whims,  and  were  they  approved  and  foUowed  in  all  their  consequences, 
they  would  destroy  a  great  many  expressions,  to  which  every  body  is 
used,  and  which  are  very  necessary  to  those  who  recover  from  a  sickness 
and  to  their  visitants;  otherwise  it  would  be  no  easy  matter  to  keep  up 
a  conversation  in  their  chambers,  and  there  would  be  a  necessity  to  use 
the  whole  jargon  of  the  precise  ladies.  But  after  all,  those  whims  are 
better  grounded  than  those  of  the  Purists,  who  are  willing  that  an  obscene 
image  should  be  imprinted  in  the  mind,  provided  it  be  with  such  and 
such  words,  and  not  with  others. 

To  sum  up  what  I  have  said  upon  this  head,  I  observe: 
I.  That  the  question  is  not  about  a  point  of  Morality,  but  is  a  mere 
Grammatical  dispute,  which  ought  to  be  decided  by  those  who  are  judges 
of  the  politeness  of  stile. 


128  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

II.  That  I  shall  ingenuously  confess,  I  did  not  aim  at  the  honour  that 
may  be  acquired  by  such  politeness. 

III.  That  I  do  not  think  all  authors  are  obliged  to  submit  to  the  new 
notion  of  politeness  of  stile;  for,  were  it  exactly  followed,  there  would 
be  no  need  at  last  of  any  Dictionary  but  that  of  the  precise  ladies. 

IV.  That  the  title  of  this  new  politeness  is  not  so  well  established  as 
to  obtain  the  force  of  a  law  in  the  Republic  of  Letters.  The  ancient 
title  remains  still,  and  may  be  used  till  a  prescription  begins. 

V.  That  in  such  a  book  as  this,  it  is  enough  not  to  act  against  the 
common  practice;  but  any  one  who  keeps  within  those  bounds  as  care- 
fully as  I  have  done,  may  use  several  expressions  which  would  be  im- 
proper in  a  sermon,  or  a  book  written  by  a  finical  author.  It  is  enough 
for  him  that  they  are  used  in  Anatomical  books,  in  cases  drawn  up  by 
Lawyers,  and  in  the  conversations  of  learned  men.  .  .  . 

X.  But  that  it  may  the  better  appear  that  Morality  is  not  concerned 
in  the  present  question,  I  must  obviate  another  objection  of  my  censur- 
ers.  Let  us  see  whether  they  can  alledge  this  pretence,  that  every 
phrase  which  offends  modesty  is  an  attempt  upon  Morality,  since  it  is 
prejudicial  to  chastity. 

Whereupon  I  observe  in  the  first  place,  that  they  who  say  that  certain 
things  offend  modesty  must  needs  mean  either  that  they  weaken  chastity, 
or  exasperate  the  persons  who  are  chaste.  In  the  first  sense,  their  posi- 
tion cannot  be  admitted ;  and  if  women  are  to  decide  the  case,  the  cen- 
surers  will  be  infallibly  cast.  But  doubtless  women  are  the  most  com- 
petent judges  of  such  a  thing,  since  shame  and  modesty  are  allotted  to 
them  in  a  much  greater  degree  than  to  men.  Let  them  therefore  be 
pleased  to  tell  us  what  passes  in  their  soul  when  they  hear  or  read  a  dis- 
course which  offends  modesty  They  will  not  say,  I  am  sure,  that  it 
not  only  fills  their  minds  with  obscene  thoughts,  but  also  that  it  excites 
in  their  hearts  a  lascivious  desire  which  they  cannot  restrain  without 
great  difiiculty;  and,  in  a  word,  that  they  feel  themselves  exposed  to 
temptations  which  stagger  their  virtue  and  carry  it  to  the  brink  of  ruin. 
We  may  be  sure  that,  instead  of  such  an  answer,  they  will  say  that  the 
idea  which  rises  against  their  will  in  their  imagination,  fills  their  minds 
at  once  with  the  highest  degree  of  shame,  indignation,  and  anger. 
Now  it  is  certain  that  nothing  can  be  more  effectual  than  this  to  corrobo- 
rate chastity,  and  remove  the  contagious  influence  of  an  obscene  object 
imprinted  on  the  imagination;  so  that,  instead  of  saying,  according  to 
the  first  sense,  that  what  offends  modesty  endangers  chastity,  it  ought  to 
be  said,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  is  a  fence,  a  preservative,  a  bulwark  for 
that  virtue;  and,  consequently,  if  we  understand  this  phrase.  Such  a 
hting  offends  modesty,  in  the  second  sense,  we  ought  to  believe  that,  in- 
stead of  weakening  chastity,  it  revives  and  corroborates  it. 

Therefore  it  will  still  be  true  that  the  censuring  of  an  author  for  not 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  129 

following  the  most  refined  politeness  of  stile,  is  a  mere  Grammatical 
controversy,  in  which  Morality  is  not  in  the  least  concerned. 

XI.  If  it  be  replied,  that  Morality  is  concerned  in  it,  since  the  author 
has  expressed  himself  in  such  a  manner  as  angers  the  readers;  I  answer, 
that  this  argument  is  grounded  upon  a  false  hypothesis;  for  no  writer 
can  prevent  the  spite,  vexation,  and  anger  of  the  readers,  on  a  thousand 
occasions.  Every  Controversist,  who  defends  his  cause  with  great  art 
and  subtility,  continually  vexes  the  zealous  readers  of  the  contrary 
party.  Whoever  in  an  account  of  a  journey,  or  in  the  History  of  a  na- 
tion, relates  things  that  are  glorious  to  his  own  country  and  religion, 
and  shameful  to  foreigners  and  other  religions,  cruelly  vexes  the  readers 
who  are  not  prepossessed  as  he  is.  The  perfection  of  an  History  con- 
sists in  being  unacceptable  to  all  sects  and  nations,  for  it  is  a  sign  the 
writer  neither  flatters  nor  spares  any  of  them.  Many  readers  fall  into 
such  a  rage  when  they  meet  with  certain  things  in  a  book  that  they  tear 
the  leaf,  or  write  in  the  margin.  Thou  liest,  rogue,  and  deservest  to  be 
bastinado'd.  None  of  these  things  can  be  alleged  as  a  reason  why  authors 
should  be  tried  at  the  bar  of  Morality;  the  Critics  are  their  only  judges. 

The  only  thing,  therefore,  that  may  be  further  objected,  is  that  Moral- 
ity is  concerned  in  the  representation  of  obscene  objects,  because  it  is  apt 
to  excite  unlawful  desires  and  leud  thoughts.  But  this  objection  is  not 
so  strong  against  me  as  against  those  who  use  the  covers,  reserves,  and 
nice  ways  of  wrapping  up  things,  which  some  complain  I  have  neglected ; 
for  they  do  not  hinder  the  impression  of  the  object  upon  the  imagination, 
but  imprint  it  without  any  shame  and  indignation.  They  who  use 
such  covers  do  not  intend  to  make  themselves  unintelligible;  they  know 
every  body  will  understand  what  they  say,  and  it  is  certain  they  are  per- 
fectly understood.  The  delicacy  of  their  touches  has  only  this  effect, 
that  people  look  upon  their  pictures  the  more  boldly  because  they  are 
not  afraid  of  meeting  with  nudities.  Modesty  would  not  suffer  them 
to  cast  their  eyes  upon  them  if  they  were  naked  obscenities;  but  when 
they  are  dressed  up  in  a  transparent  cloth,  they  do  not  scruple  to  take  a 
full  view  of  them,  without  any  manner  of  shame,  or  indignation  against 
the  Painter;  and  thus  the  object  insinuates  itself  more  easily  into  the 
imagination,  and  is  more  at  liberty  to  pour  its  malignant  influence  into 
the  heart  than  if  the  soul  was  struck  with  shame  and  anger;  for  those 
two  passions  exhaust  almost  the  whole  activity  of  the  soul,  and  put  it 
into  such  a  trouble  that  it  can  hardly  have  any  other  sentiment.  At 
least  it  is  certain,  that  obscenity  cannot  act  so  strongly  upon  a  soul  over- 
whelmed with  shame  and  anger,  as  upon  one  that  is  free  from  confusion 
and  vexation.  Pluribus  intentus  minor  est  ad  singula  sensus.  When  the 
soul  is  affected  with  one  passion,  it  is  less  susceptible  of  another 

Add  to  this,  that  when  an  obscenity  is  expressed  only  by  halves,  but 
in  such  a  manner  that  one  may  easily  supply  what  is  wanting,  they  who 


ISO  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

see  it  finish  themselves  the  picture  which  sulHes  the  imagination;  and 
therefore  they  have  a  greater  share  in  the  production  of  that  image  than 
if  the  thing  had  been  fully  explained.  In  this  last  case  they  had  been 
only  passive,  and  consequentiy  the  admission  of  the  obscene  image 
would  have  been  very  innocent;  but  in  the  other  case  they  are  an  active 
principle,'  and,  consequently,  are  not  so  innocent,  and  have  more  reason 
to  fear  the  contagious  effects  of  that  object,  which  is  partly  their  work. 
Thus  this  pretended  regard  to  modesty,  is  really  a  more  dangerous 
snare;  it  makes  one  dwell  upon  an  obscene  matter  in  order  to  find  out 
what  was  not  clearly  expressed.  And  is  this  a  matter  fit  to  be  suggested 
to  the  reader's  meditation  ?  Were  it  not  better  to  prevent  his  stopping 
at  it? 

XII.  This  is  of  still  greater  force  against  the  writers  who  seek  for 
covers  and  reserves.  Had  they  used  the  first  word  they  met  with  in  a 
Dictionary,  they  had  only  touched  upon  an  obscene  gibe,  and  gone 
presently  over  that  place;  but  the  covers  they  have  sought  out  with 
great  art,  and  the  periods  they  have  corrected  and  abridged,  till  they 
were  satisfied  with  the  fineness  of  their  pencil,  [have]  made  them 
dwell  several  hours  upon  an  obscenity.  They  have  turned  it  all  manner 
of  ways;  they  have  been  winding  about  it,  as  if  they  had  been  unwilling 
to  leave  such  a  charming  place.  Is  not  this  ad  sirenwn  scopulos  con- 
senescere,  to  cast  anchor  within  reach  of  the  syren 's  voice,  and  the  way 
to  spoil  and  infect  the  heart?  It  is  certain,  that  excepting  those  who 
are  truly  devout,  most  of  our  other  Purists  are  not  in  the  least  concerned 
for  modesty,  when  they  avoid  so  carefully  the  expressions  of  our  ances- 
tors; they  are  professed  gallants,  who  cajole  all  sorts  of  women,  and  have 
frequently  two  mistresses,  one  whom  they  keep,  ana  another  who  keeps 
them.  Truly  it  becomes  such  men  very  well  to  exclaim  against  a  word 
that  offends  modesty,  and  to  be  so  nice  when  something  is  not  left  to  be 
supplied  by  the  reader's  imagination!  We  may  apply  to  them  what 
Moliere  said  of  a  pretended  prude:  "Believe  me,  those  woman  who 
are  so  very  formal  are  not  accounted  more  virtuous  for  it.  On  the  con- 
trary, their  mysterious  severity,  and  affected  grimaces,  provoke  all  the 
world  to  censure  their  actions.  People  delight  to  find  out  something  to 
blame  in  their  conduct.  And  to  give  an  instance  of  it,  there  were  the 
other  day  some  women  at  this  play  opposite  to  our  box,  who  by  their 
affected  grimaces  during  the  whole  representation,  and  turning  aside 
their  heads,  and  hiding  their  faces,  made  people  tell  many  ridiculous 
stories  of  them,  which  had  never  been  mentioned  if  they  had  not  behaved 
so;  nay,  a  footman  cried  out  that  their  ears  were  chaster  than  all  the  rest 
of  their  body.  The  men  1  speak  of  think  only  of  making  themselves 
admired  for  the  delicacy  of  their  pen." 

The  Jansenists  are  accounted  the  best  Moralists;  and  I  do  but  follow 
their  opinion,  when  I  say  that  a  gross  obscenity  is  less  dangerous  than 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  181 

one  that  is  nicely  expressed.  I  am  not  ignorant,  says  one  of  them,  "that 
people  call  ordures  only  such  words  as  are  grossly  obscene;  and  gallant- 
ries, those  which  are  expressetl  in  a  nice,  delicate,  and  ingenious  manner; 
but  gross  obscenities,  though  covered  with  a  witty  ambiguity,  as  it  were 
with  a  transparent  veil,  do  not  cease  to  be  obscenities;  they  do  not  less 
oflFend  chaste  ears,  defile  the  imagination,  and  corrupt  the  heart;  a  suttle 
and  imperceptible  poison  is  not  less  mortal  than  a  violent  one.  There 
are  some  encomiums  upon  modesty,  which  modesty  itself  cannot  bear. 
Witness  that  of  Father  le  Moine.  The  gross  obscenities  of  a  Carman 
or  Porter  are  not  by  a  great  deal  so  pernicious  as  the  ingenious  words  of 
a  cajoUing  spark,"  This  Jansenist  having  mentioned  some  gallant 
thoughts  vented  by  Father  Bouhours,  under  the  name  of  an  interlocutor 
in  a  dialogue,  which  are  expressed  in  very  nice  words,  goes  on  thus :  "All 
parents,  not  excepting  those  who  are  most  engaged  in  the  world,  will  ac- 
knowledge that  tlwse  pernicious  fooleries  are  MORE  DANGEROUS  than 
GROSS  obscenities;  that  they  corrupt  the  hearts,  and  make  the  worst 
of  impressions  upon  the  minds  of  youth."  I  have  quoted  in  my  Diction- 
ary a  passage  of  Mr.  NichoUe,  wherein  he  positively  affirms  that  unlawful 
passions  are  the  most  dangerous  when  they  are  covered  with  a  veil  of 
modesty. 

This  cannot  be  denied.  Nay,  women  of  an  imperfect  virtue  would 
run  less  danger  among  brutish  men,  who  should  sing  filthy  songs  and 
talk  roughly  like  soldiers,  than  amonge  polite  men  who  express  them- 
selves in  respectful  terms.  They  would  think  themselves  indispensably 
obliged  to  be  angry  with  those  brutes,  and  to  quit  the  company,  and  go 
out  of  the  room  with  rage  and  indignation.  But  soft  and  flattering 
compliments,  or  at  most  such  as  are  intermixed  with  ambiguous  words, 
and  some  freedoms  nicely  expressed,  would  not  startle  them ;  they  would 
listen  to  them,  and  gently  receive  the  poeson. 

A  man  who  courts  a  maid  would  immediately  destroy  all  his  hopes 
should  he  grossly  and  filthily  propose  his  ill  design ;  he  is  a  perfect  stranger 
to  the  Art  of  Love,  if  he  has  no  regai-d  to  modesty  in  the  choice  of  his 
expressions. 

There  is  no  father  but  would  rather  have  his  daughters  blush  than 
laugh  at  some  stories  told  in  their  presence.  If  they  blush,  they  are  safe; 
shame  prevents  the  ill  effect  of  the  obscenity;  but  if  they  laugh,  it  makes 
an  impression,  and  nothing  diverts  the  stroke.  If  they  laugh,  it  is  doubt- 
less because  the  obscenity  was  artfully  wrapped  up,  and  seasoned  with 
an  apparent  modesty.  Had  it  been  grossly  expressed,  it  would  have 
excited  shame  and  indignation.  Farces  in  our  days  are  more  dangerous 
than  those  of  our  ancestors:  In  former  times  they  were  so  obscene  that 
virtuous  women  durst  not  appear  at  them;  but  now  they  do  not  scruple 
to  see  them  under  pretence  that  obscenities  are  wrapped  up,  though  not 
in  impenetrable  covers.     Are  there  any  such  ?    They  would  bore  them 


1S«  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

through,   were   they   made   up    of    seven   hides    Hke   Ajax's   shield. 

If  any  thing  could  make  La  Fontaine 's  Tales  very  pernicious,  it  is 
their  being  generally  free  from  obscene  expressions. 

Some  ingenious  men,  much  given  to  debauchery,  will  tell  you  that  the 
satires  of  Juvenal  are  incomparably  more  apt  to  put  one  out  of  conceit 
with  leudness,  than  the  most  modest  and  most  chaste  discourses  that 
can  be  made  against  that  vice.  They  will  tell  you  that  Petronius  is  not 
so  dangerous,  with  all  his  gross  obscenities,  as  he  is  in  the  nice  dress  of 
Count  de  Rabutin;  and  that  the  reading  of  the  book  intituled,  Les 
Amours  des  Gaules,  will  make  gallantry  much  more  amiable  than  the 
reading  of  Petronius. 

It  were  wrong  to  conclude  from  what  has  been  said  that  the  least  evil 
would  be  to  use  the  expressions  of  Porters.  That  is  not  the  case.  I 
know  the  Stoics  laughed  at  the  distinction  of  words,  and  maintained  that 
every  thing  ought  to  be  called  by  its  proper  name,  and  there  being  noth- 
ing dishonest  in  the  conjugal  duty,  it  could  not  be  denoted  by  any  im- 
modest word,  and  that  therefore  the  word  used  by  clowns  to  denote  it  is 
as  good  as  any  other.  You  may  see  their  sophisms  in  a  letter  of  Cicero. 
Perhaps  it  were  no  easy  thing  to  silence  them  by  the  way  of  disputation, 
but  they  do  not  deserve  to  be  admitted  to  dispute  on  that  subject.  What 
has  been  accounted  a  rule  of  decency  and  modesty  in  all  societies,  time 
out  of  mind,  and  with  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  public,  ought  to  be 
looked  upon  as  a  first  principle,  which  no  man  is  allowed  to  contradict. 
And  therefore  when  a  whole  nation  agreed  in  calling  some  words  im- 
modest, that  the  very  Porters  who  use  them  most  are  persuaded  of  their 
obscenity,  and  abstain  from  them  before  persons  of  honour,  and  would 
be  offended  to  hear  them  pronounced  in  a  public  assembly — no  private 
person  can  be  admitted  to  oppose  such  a  judgment.  All  the  members 
of  the  society  are  obliged  to  respect  it.  The  courts  of  justice  afford  us 
a  remarkable  instance  of  it;  for  Lawyers  are  not  allowed  to  repeat  such 
words,  when  they  plead  for  the  punishment  of  those  who  have  used  them 
in  reviling  their  neighbours.  They  will  have  public  modesty  respected 
in  the  hearing  of  a  cause;  but  when  they  judge  by  report,  they  not  only 
permit  the  reporter  to  mention  the  very  words  of  the  offender  though 
never  so  obscene,  but  also  command  him  to  do  it.  This  I  have  from  a 
Counsellor  in  the  Parliament  of  Paris,  who  told  me  within  these  few 
years  that,  having  used  a  circumlocution  the  first  time  he  reported  such 
a  cause,  the  President  gave  him  to  understand  that  there  was  no  occasion 
to  have  a  regard  to  chaste  ears,  but  to  judge  of  the  nature  of  the  offence, 
and  that  therefore  he  was  obliged  to  speak  the  very  word  it  consisted  in. 
I  fancy  the  Inquisition  uses  the  same  method. 

The  Stoics  must  have  followed  very  near  the  same  rule,  and  if  in  their 
private  conferences  they  did  not  think  fit  to  prefer  one  word  to  another, 
there  was  at  least  a  necessity  for  them  to  conform  in  public  to  the  com- 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  138 

mon  way  of  speaking.     The  unanimous  consent  of  nations  ought  in 
that  respect  to  be  the  standard  of  all  private  persons. 

Wherefore  if  the  word  putairi  [a  whore]  which  our  forefathers  used  in 
their  gravest  books,  as  freely  as  the  Romans  used  the  word  meretrix, 
begins  to  be  generally  decried,  it  is  fit  all  authors  should  begin  to  disuse 
it,  and  substitute  the  word  courtezan  in  the  room  of  it,  since  the  world 
will  have  it  so.  But  this  is  at  the  bottom  a  groundless  nicety,  for  either 
the  word  courtezan  excites  as  strong  an  idea  as  the  other,  or  a  weaker 
one.  If  the  former,  there  is  nothing  gained  by  it;  everybody  will  still 
have  a  notion  of  an  infamous  object;  if  the  latter,  it  is  lessening  the  ab- 
horrence which  the  public  ought  to  have  for  a  prostitute.  But  does  such 
a  creature  deserve  such  a  regard  ?  Were  it  not  better  to  aggravate  the 
infamous  notion  of  the  trade  she  professes  ?  Are  you  afraid  of  making 
her  too  odious  ?  You  are  for  giving  her  a  favourable  name  which  for- 
merly signifieti  a  court-lady.  One  would  think  you  are  afraid  of  offend- 
ing her,  and  willing  to  soften  people 's  mind  by  giving  her  a  quaint  name. 
The  consequences  of  which  would  be,  if  people  reasoned  right,  that  the 
word  courtezan  would  quickly  grow  obscene,  and  a  softer  one  should  be 
used  for  it.  One  should  say,  a  woman  who  behaves  herself  ill;  and  then, 
a  woman  that  is  talked  of;  and  then,  a  siispicious  wom^n;  and  then,  a 
woTnan  who  does  not  live  a  holy  life,  and  at  last  desire  the  most  finical 
ladies  to  invent  some  other  circumlocution. 

I  am  just  now  sensible  of  another  objection.  It  is  a  piece  of  incivility, 
will  some  say,  to  insert  in  a  book  what  cannot  be  spoken  in  the  presence 
of  virtuous  women;  and  therefore  since  incivility  is  blamable,  morally 
speaking,  the  fault  for  which  you  may  be  blamed  does  not  concern  Gram- 
mar, but  Morality. 

I  answer,  in  the  first  place,  that  incivility  morally  speaking  is  an  ill 
thing  only  when  it  proceeds  from  pride,  or  a  wilful  contempt  of  other 
men ;  but  when  one  is  wanting  in  point  of  civility,  either  because  he  knows 
not  the  way  of  expressing  it,  or  does  not  think  himself  obliged  to  follow 
it,  he  is  guilty  of  no  sin.  Do  ye  think  that  an  old  Professor  of  the  Sor- 
bonne  is  bound  to  know  all  the  arts  that  are  practiced  by  the  young 
Abbes  of  the  court,  to  express  their  respect  to  the  ladies  with  great  polite- 
ness ?  That  Professor  has  other  things  to  learn  which  are  much  more 
important;  and  though  he  were  informed  what  sort  of  civility  is  in  fash- 
ion, he  might  lawfully  dispense  with  it.  His  age  and  character  do  not 
require  he  should  conform  to  it,  but  rather  the  contrary.  I  add,  that 
new  civilities  are  a  slavery  introduced  by  great  men,  or  invented  by  their 
flatterers,  to  the  prejudice  of  ancient  liberty.  But  if  it  be  lawful  for 
every  private  person  to  depart  from  the  old  custom,  it  is  also  lawful  to 
keep  it  till  every  body  has  laid  it  aside,  and  it  becomes  some  persons  not 
to  be  too  hasty  in  taking  up  new  motles.  It  is  with  this  as  with  fashions 
in  cloaths.     Worldly  people  immediately  appear  in  the  new  fashion,  but 


134  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

the  grave  and  wise  do  it  only  when  it  is  grown  adult,  if  I  may  be  allowed 
to  say  so.  A  medium  ought  to  be  kept  in  those  things;  a  man  must  not 
be  one  of  the  first  who  takes  them  up,  nor  the  last  who  leaves  them;  and 
none  makes  himself  ridiculous  by  keeping  the  old  fashion,  but  when  it 
is  quite  out  of  doors. 

I  answer  in  the  second  place,  that  an  author  is  not  bound  to  suppress 
all  the  words  that  cannot  be  civilly  spoken  in  the  presence  of  virtuous 
women:  Witness — de  St.  Olon,  who  is  no  stranger  to  the  ways  of  the 
court;  he  would  not  have  said  before  the  ladies  in  a  serious  conversation 
what  he  has  writ  concerning  the  marriages  of  the  Africans. 

There  are  many  reasons  for  taking  a  greater  liberty  in  a  book  than 
in  conversation.  An  obscenity  spoken  before  virtuous  women  in  good 
company,  makes  them  very  uneasy;  they  cannot  ward  off  the  shocking 
blow;  it  is  not  in  our  power  to  hear  or  not  to  hear  what  we  are  told  in 
Vulgar  Tongue.  The  accidental  meeting  of  a  naked  man,  or  the  sight 
of  a  leud  picture,  is  not  without  remedy;  we  may  immediately  turn 
aside,  or  shut  our  eyes;  but  we  cannot  stop  the  mouth  of  a  talking  man. 
The  shame  occasioned  by  an  obscene  idea  is  much  greater  when  we  are 
surrounded  with  people  who  observe  our  looks.  The  confusion  and 
perplexity  of  a  virtuous  woman  on  such  an  occasion  makes  her  very  un- 
easy ;  this  uneasiness  is  attended  with  indignation,  because  men  do  not 
use  to  talk  so  before  women  whom  they  respect,  and  think  to  be  honest, 
but  before  women  of  whom  they  have  an  ill  opinion.  There  are  no  such 
inconveniencies  with  respect  to  a  book.  If  there  is  any  thing  in  it  which 
in  your  opinion  is  unchaste,  you  may  read  it  or  let  it  alone.  For  in- 
stance, you  may  foresee  that  the  article  of  the  courtezan  Lais  in  my 
Dictionary  will  contain  some  lewd  quotations;  do  not  read  it.  Let 
some  trusty  persons  take  a  view  of  the  book,  before  you  undertake  to 
read  it,  and  let  them  inform  you  of  what  is  to  be  passed  over.  Besides, 
a  woman  who  is  alone  when  she  reads  a  book  is  not  exposed  to  the  looks 
of  a  company,  which  is  the  thing  that  most  perplexes  and  confounds 
her;  and  because  an  author  speaks  to  no  body  in  particular,  she  does 
not  think  herself  slighted  or  offended. 

But  after  all  you  could  not  but  know,  will  some  say,  that  there  are 
now  many  women  who  read  books  of  literature;  and  therefore  you 
should  not  have  been  contented  with  what  you  call  common  civility; 
you  should  have  observed  the  nicest  and  the  most  rigid  civility,  that  the 
fair  sex  might  not  find  any  thing  in  your  book  that  might  sully  their 
imagination.  My  answer  is,  that  had  it  been  possible  by  observing  such 
a  rigid  civility  to  prevent  the  reader's  finding  any  such  thing  in  my 
Dictionary,  I  had  willingly  submitted  to  the  rules  of  the  Purists,  who 
come  nearest  to  the  taste  of  precise  women ;  but  I  was  fully  convinced 
that  the  greatest  niceness  cannot  remove  any  image  of  an  obscene  object 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  135 

from  the  mind  of  the  reader.     This  will  not  be  easily  believed,  unless 
I  shew  the  truth  of  it  with  the  utmost  evidence. 

In  order  to  do  it,  I  need  only  prove  this  single  proposition :  The  most 
obscene  and  the  most  m/idest  words  that  can  he  used  to  denote  a  filthy  object 
do  both  'paint  it  with  an  equal  force  and  liveliness  in  the  imagination  of 
the  hearer,  or  the  reader.  This  seems  at  first  a  great  paradox,  and  yet 
it  may  be  made  sensible  to  every  body  by  a  popular  argument.  Let  us 
suppose  one  of  these  adventures,  which  are  sometimes  the  talk  of  a 
whole  town,  a  marriage  ready  to  be  celebrated,  and  suspended  all  of  a 
sudden  by  the  opposition  of  a  third  person.  This  third  person  is  a 
young  woman,  who  happens  to  be  with  child,  and  demands  that  the 
marriage  her  lover  has  contracted  with  another  should  be  declared  void. 
Let  us  suppose  that  a  very  virtuous  woman,  who  has  heard  of  this  op- 
position only  in  general,  is  willing  to  know  what  reasons  that  young 
woman  has  for  it.  She  might  be  answered  a  hundred  different  ways, 
without  using  the  words  which  a  porter,  or  a  debauchee  uses  in  such 
cases.  She  might  be  told,  site  has  the  misfortune  to  prove  with  child; 
he  has  enjoyed  her;  he  has  kept  her  company;  they  have  been  too  intimate 
together;  he  has  had  to  do  with  her;  he  has  had  the  last  favor  of  Iter;  she 
has  granted  him  the  most  precious  thing  she  had,  as  it  appears  from  the 
consequences;  what  passed  betwixt  them,  cannot  be  modestly  spoken, 
chaste  ears  would  be  offended  at  it;  she  is  obliged  to  get  her  honor  repaired. 
Several  other  phrases  better  wrapped  up  might  be  found  out  in  answer 
to  the  question  of  that  virtuous  woman;  but  all  of  them  would  imprint 
in  her  mind  the  filthy  and  brutish  action  which  has  produced  that 
young  woman's  pregnancy,  as  strongly  as  Michael  Angelo  could  have 
done  it  upon  a  cloth;  and  if  that  virtuous  woman  had  heard  by  chance 
the  bawdy  word  whispered  by  a  debauchee  in  the  ear  of  another  de- 
bauchee, to  let  him  know  the  matter,  she  could  not  have  a  clearer  notion 
of  the  tiling.  No  person,  though  ever  so  modest,  can  sincerely  deny 
what  I  have  been  saying,  if  they  will  examine  what  passes  within  their 
breast.  It  is  therefore  certain  that  the  most  modest  and  the  most  ob- 
scene words  equally  defile  the  imagination,  when  the  thing  denoted  by 
them  is  a  filthy  object. 

Though  you  use  the  most  modest  expressions  employed  in  the  Scrip- 
ture, to  represent  what  we  call  conjugal  duty:  Adam  knew  his  wife  Eve; 
Abraham  went  in  unto  Hagar;  I  went  unto  the  prophetess,  you  will 
never  be  able  to  blot  out  the  image  of  that  object;  it  will  be  imprinted 
in  the  mind  as  strongly  as  if  you  used  the  porterly  language.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  phrases,  to  consummate  a  marriage,  the  marriage  was 
consummated,  the  marriage  was  not  consummated,  expressions  which,  if 
I  may  say  so,  are  consecrated,  and  cannot  be  avoided  in  the  most  serious 
relations,  and  the  most  Majestic  Histories;  those  words  raise  the  same 
idea  as  the  words  of  a  ploughman. 


136  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

But  how  comes  it  then,  will  some  say,  that  a  virtuous  woman  is  not 
offended  with  veiled  expressions,  and  is  angry  with  a  filthy  word  ?  I 
answer  that  their  indignation  proceeds  from  the  accessory  ideas  which 
attend  such  a  word,  but  do  not  attend  a  phrase  which  is  veiled. 
The  impudence  of  those  who  express  themselves  like  porters,  and  their 
want  of  respect,  is  the  true  cause  of  such  an  indignation.  Their  ex- 
pression excites  three  ideas :  One  is  a  direct  and  main  idea ;  the  others 
are  indirect  and  accessory.  The  direct  idea  represents  the  filthiness  of 
the  object,  and  does  not  do  it  more  distinctly  than  the  idea  of  another 
word.  But  the  indirect  and  accessory  idea  represent  the  disposition  of 
the  person  who  speaks,  his  brutishness,  his  contempt  of  the  hearers,  and 
his  design  of  affronting  a  woman  of  honour.  This  is  what  she  is  angry 
at.  She  is  not  offended,  as  she  is  a  modest  woman ;  for  under  this  no- 
tion nothing  can  offend  her  but  the  object  itself  which  sullies  the  imag- 
ination ;  but  she  is  not  offended  at  that  object,  for  if  it  had  been  repre- 
sented to  her  imagination  with  other  phrases  expressing  the  obscenity  as 
effectually  as  the  filthy  word,  she  would  not  have  been  angry;  and 
therefore  her  vexation  proceeds  from  some  other  reason,  I  mean  from 
her  being  uncivilly  used.  Hence  it  is  that  a  woman  of  gallantry  will 
often  express  a  greater  indignation  against  those  who  talk  obscenely  to 
her,  than  a  virtuous  woman  [will],  because  she  takes  it  for  an  insult, 
and  a  bloody  affront.  Her  resentment  does  not  proceed  from  the  love 
of  chastity,  but  from  pride  and  a  desire  of  revenge.  As  for  virtuous 
women,  who  are  provoked  at  a  gross  obscenity,  they  are  so  out  of  a  rea- 
sonable principle  of  self-love;  for  reason  requires  they  should  resent  an 
injury  which  deprives  them  of  the  respect  due  to  their  sex;  and  besides 
it  is  very  reasonable  they  should  keep  up  a  good  reputation,  which  they 
could  not  do,  should  they  suffer  the  same  things  to  be  said  to  them 
which  are  said  to  lend  women. 

Thus  I  prove  that  it  was  impossible  to  leave  out  of  this  Dictionary 
every  thing  that  sullies  the  imagination.  It  must  be  sullied,  which  way 
soever  the  reader  be  told  that  Henry  IV  had  natural  children. 

It  is  therefore  enough  for  me  to  keep  within  the  bounds  of  common 
civility.  If  any  one  was  so  great  a  lover  of  purity  as  to  wish  not  only 
that  no  immodest  desire  should  arise  in  his  mind,  but  also  that  his  im- 
agination should  be  constantly  free  from  every  obscene  idea,  he  could 
not  attain  his  end  without  losing  his  eyes  and  his  ears,  and  the  remem- 
brance of  many  things  which  he  could  not  choose  but  see  or  hear. 
Such  a  perfection  can  not  be  hoped  for  whilst  we  see  men  and  beasts, 
and  know  the  signification  of  certain  words  which  make  a  necessary  part 
of  our  language.  It  is  not  in  our  power  either  to  have  or  not  to  have 
certain  ideas  when  certain  objects  strike  our  senses ;  they  are  imprinted 
in  our  imagination  whether  we  will  or  not.  Chastity  is  not  endangered 
by  them,  provided  we  do  not  grow  fond  of  them,  and  approve  of  them. 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  137 

If  chastity  was  inconsistent  with  impure  ideas,  we  should  never  go  to 
church,  where  impurity  is  censured,  and  so  many  banns  of  matrimony 
are  bid ;  we  should  never  hear  that  oflFice  of  the  Liturgy  that  is  read  be- 
fore the  whole  congregation  on  a  wedding-day ;  we  should  never  read 
the  most  excellent  of  all  books,  I  mean  the  holy  Scripture;  and  we 
should  avoid,  as  so  many  infectious  places,  all  the  conversations  where 
people  talk  of  pregnancies,  childbirths  and  christenings.  Imagination 
is  a  rambler  which  runs  in  a  monent  from  the  effect  to  the  cause,  and 
finds  the  way  so  well  beaten,  that  it  goes  from  one  end  to  the  other, 
before  reason  has  time  to  stop  it. 

There  is  another  consideration  which  may  teach  the  compilers  of 
Literature  that  it  is  enough  for  them  to  keep  within  the  bounds  of  com- 
mon decency;  I  mean,  that  they  must  not  expect  to  be  read  by  people 
whose  ears  and  imagination  are  so  tender  as  to  receive  dangerous  im- 
pressions from  the  least  obscene  object.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was 
reasonably  supposed  in  ancient  Rome  that  the  filthy  words  which  little 
children  were  taught  to  speak  in  a  chamber  of  the  bride,  were  the  first 
she  had  heard ;  but  I  am  persuaded  that,  in  our  days,  any  person  of 
either  sex  who  has  been  conversant  in  the  world  four  or  five  years,  has 
heard  abundance  of  obscene  things,  especially  in  such  countries  where 
jealousy  is  not  tyrannical.  There  people  enjoy  a  great  freedom ;  merry 
conversations,  parties  of  pleasure,  feasts,  and  country  journies  are  very 
common ;  they  think  only  of  passing  away  the  time  merrily.  It  is  true, 
the  presence  of  the  fair  sex  prevents  obscenities  from  appearing  bare- 
faced, but  they  appear  in  a  disguise,  which,  as  I  have  shown  above, 
does  not  hinder  the  impression  of  a  filthy  object,  no  more  than  if  one 
should  use  the  plain  words  of  a  clown..  Women  dare  not  be  angry  when 
things  are  wrapped  up,  for  fear  of  being  accounted  finical  and  precise. 
This  is  a  mere  dispute  about  words;  the  thing  signified  is  admitted,  but 
not  all  the  words  which  signify  it.  Therefore,  an  author  may  very  well 
believe  that  his  readers  will  not  be  surprised,  being  strengthened  and 
hardened  by  custom. 

It  is  certain,  that  women  who  read  a  book  of  Literature  do  not  begin 
with  that ;  they  have  already  read  romances,  plays,  and  love  poems. 
They  are  therefore  suflSciently  experienced.  There  is  nothing  in  my 
Dictionary  that  can  daunt  them,  after  they  have  encountered  such  ene- 
mies. If  the  luxurious  Music  of  Operas,  the  tenderness  of  Tragedies, 
the  licentiousness  of  Comedies,  and  the  affecting  descriptions  of  the 
effects  and  disorders  of  love,  make  no  dangerous  impressions  upon 
them,  they  need  not  be  afraid  of  reading  the  articles  of  Abelard  and 
Heloisa.  If  they  find  shocking  passages  in  my  Dictionary,  their  pain 
will  soon  be  succeeded  by  the  agreeable  pleasure  they  will  feel  m  having 
given  to  themselves  fresh  proofs  of  the  strength  of  their  modesty.  If 
they  delight  in  such  passages,  and  spoil  themselves  by  dwelling  on  them. 


138  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

that  will  not  be  my  fault;  they  must  blame  their  own  depravity.  Do  I 
not  show  these  things  to  be  criminal  ? 

This  is  what  I  had  to  say  upon  the  first  of  the  two  questions  which  I 
was  to  discuss.  I  hope  the  reader  will  be  sensible  of  the  whole  force  of 
my  justification,  and  own,  that  if  there  is  in  my  Dictionary  any  obscenity 
liable  to  censure,  it  does  not  proceed  from  the  expressions  I  use  when  I 
speak  of  myself.  Let  us  inquire  now  whether  it  consists  in  the  things 
themselves,  either  when  I  have  set  down  the  words  of  other  authors,  or 
have  given  only  the  sense  of  them.  This  is  the  question  I  have  under- 
taken to  examine. 

No  man  can  answer  this  question  in  the  affirmative,  without  laying 
down  these  two  positions :  1.  That  an  Historian  is  obliged  to  suppress 
all  the  leud  actions  which  are  to  be  found  either  in  the  lives  of  Princes 
or  those  of  private  persons.  2,  That  a  Moralist,  who  condemns  leud- 
ness,  ought  never  to  mention  anything  that  offends  modesty.  The  Pu- 
rists I  have  been  speaking  of  must  necessarily  admit  these  two  positions, 
and  it  is  certain  there  have  been  at  all  times  many  people  who  have 
condemned  the  histories  and  invectives,  in  which  the  disorders  of  leud- 
ness  appear  under  dreadful  images. 

If  our  Purists  are  willing  to  argue  consistently,  and  to  keep  constantly 
to  their  maxims,  they  must  admit  the  two  positions  I  have  mentioned. 
They  must  say,  1.  That  an  Historian  ought  barely  to  observe  that 
Charlemagne,  the  two  Joans  of  Naples,  and  Henry  IV.  of  France  were 
not  chaste.  2.  That  a  Preacher,  and  a  ghostly  Father,  and  any  other 
man  who  desires  the  reformation  of  manners,  ought  to  censure  leudness 
only  in  general.  I  have  quoted  an  author  who  continually  condemns 
the  Historian  Mezerai  for  mentioning  some  particular  facts  which  offend 
chaste  ears.  He  censures  him  particularly  for  what  he  says  of  Margaret 
de  Valois  the  first  wife  of  Henry  the  Great. 

There  have  been  such  Purists  in  all  ages ;  but  there  have  always  been 
also  great  authors  who  laughed  at  the  scruples  and  fancies  of  these  men ; 
so  that  the  Republic  of  Letters  has  always  been  divided  into  two  parties 
upon  this  head — each  of  them  alledged  their  reason  and  authorities; 
each  of  them  raised  objections,  and  made  answers,  and  no  supreme  trib- 
unal did  ever  determine  the  matter,  I  am  therefore  dispensed  with 
entering  upon  a  long  discussion;  this  affords  me  a  short  way  to  come 
off.  For  if  they  who  despised  the  maxims  of  the  Purists,  did  always 
make  a  considerable  party  in  the  Republic  of  Letters;  if  they  always 
maintained  their  right,  if  that  difference  has  never  been  decided,  every 
man  may  lawfully  side  with  them,  and  believe  at  least,  that  it  is  probable 
they  are  in  the  right.  No  man  can  reasonably  be  denied  the  privileges 
of  the  doctine  of  probability  in  this  case.  They  who  follow  the  Anti- 
Purists,  are  not  reduced  to  -two  or  three  grave  authors;  they  may  be 
reckoned  by  hundreds,  and  may  strengthen  their  cause  by  the  decisive 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  139 

example  of  the  inspired  writers.  If  you  peruse  the  book  of  Genesis 
you  will  find  that  Moses  tells  us  without  any  compass  of  words,  that  two 
daughters  having  made  their  father  drunk,  lay  with  him,  and  had 
children  by  him;  that  Dinah,  Jacob's  daughter,  was  ravished;  that 
Judah,  the  son  of  the  same  Patriarch,  defiled  himself  in  an  open  road 
with  a  woman  he  took  for  a  prostitute,  but  she  was  his  daughter-in-law 
and  knew  him  very  well ;  that  one  of  the  sons  of  Judah  .  .  .  ;  and  that 
Reuben,  eldest  brother  to  Judah,  committed  incest  with  a  wife  of  his 
own  father.  There  are  many  things  in  Leviticus  which  are  not  proper 
to  be  read  in  Protestant  churches.  An  abominable  action  is  related  in 
the  book  of  Judges.  The  Prophets  used  the  most  energic  expressions  to 
represent  the  turpitude  of  leudness.  See  also  the  description  of  whore 
in  the  Apocalypse.  They  have  used  some  comparisons  which  the  Min- 
inters  durst  not  mention  entire.  All  the  Protestant  tradesmen  of  France 
could  tell  the  Popish  missionaries,  disputing  about  the  merit  of  good 
works,  that  all  our  righteousness  is  as  filthy  rags;  but  the  remaining  part 
of  the  passage  was  unknown  to  them,  because  it  was  not  put  into  Con- 
troversial books.  Has  St.  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  such  a  re- 
gard to  chaste  ears  as  our  Purists  require  ?  Does  he  not  describe  in  both 
strong  and  plain  expressions  the  abominable  impurities  of  the  Heathens  ? 
If  it  be  objected,  that  the  sacred  writers  have  privileges  peculiar  to 
them,  sunt  superis  sua  jura :  I  answer,  that  not  only  the  gravest  Heathen 
writers,  but  also  the  Antient  Fathers  of  the  Church,  wrote  with  the 
same  freedom.  When  Livy  does  so  gravely  and  majestically  relate  the 
suppression  of  the  Bacchanalia,  he  discovers  several  abominations, 
which  sully  the  imagination,  and  cannot  be  read  with  out  horror.  Sen- 
eca, the  gravest  and  most  rigid  Philosopher  of  Ancient  Rome,  describes 
the  most  infamous  leudness  in  the  plainest  words.  He  condemns  it 
with  all  the  severity  of  a  Censor,  but  at  the  same  time  he  makes  a  plain 
and  almost  naked  description  of  it.  When  the  Fathers  of  the  Church 
speak  of  the  Gnostics  or  Manichees,  or  such  sects,  they  relate  several 
things  which  not  only  defile  the  imagination,  but  also  makes  one 's  stom- 
ach rise,  and  might  serve  for  a  vomit.  Amobius,  in  his  invectives  against 
the  Heathen,  is  so  Uttle  cautious  in  his  words,  that  M.  de  la  Fontaine 
would  certainly  have  dressed  such  things  more  cleanly,  and  had  been 
more  reserved  in  what  concerns  Priapus.  St.  Augustin,  on  some  occa- 
sions, expressed  himself  in  very  plain  and  obscene  words.  St  Ambrose 
and  St  Chrysostome  have  done  the  like;  nay,  the  latter  maintained  we 
ought  to  do  it  in  ordef  to  inspire  a  true  abhorrence  for  such  lend  actions 
as  we  describe.  Casaubon  did  not  approve  this  method ;  but  he  must 
permit  us  to  believe  that  his  opinion  about  moral  questions  is  not  to  be 
compared  with  that  of  so  great  a  Saint. 

If  a  catalogue  was  made  of  all  the  Historians  from  Suetonius  down  to 
Mezerai,  who  have  grossly  related  lend  actions,  it  would  fill  up  many 


140  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

pages;  and  if  it  be  said  that  Suetonius  has  been  blamed  by  famous  auth- 
ors, my  adversaries  can  take  no  advantage  of  it,  since  those  who  vindicate 
him,  are  so  eminent  as  those  who  find  fault  with  him. 

There  is  a  vast  number  of  Moralists  who  have  deplored  the  corruption 
of  their  age,  and  given  a  plain  and  naked  account  of  the  several  excesses 
committed  in  it.  I  do  not  pretend  to  excuse  all  the  Casuists ;  but  I  can 
positively  aflfirm  that  in  the  Church  of  Rome  none  of  them  can  avoid 
saying  many  things  that  offend  modesty.  It  is  well  known  that  Father 
Natalis  Alexander  declared  for  rigid  Morality,  and  was  engaged  in  many 
quarrels  upon  that  account.  I  perused  the  other  day  in  his  Moral  Doc- 
trine what  concerns  the  sins  forbidden  by  the  seventh  commandment, 
and  hardly  found  any  period  in  it  but  what  contains  gross  obscenities; 
and  yet  I  think  he  is  one  of  those  who  treat  such  matters  with  the  greatest 
modesty;  but  it  is  a  subject  that  does  not  permit  a  writer  to  have  a  tender 
regard  for  modesty.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Canonists,  and  those 
who  write  Anayomical  books ;  and  to  show  that  to  this  very  day  men  of  a 
good  taste  and  great  politeness  side  with  the  Anti-Purists,  I  shall  set 
down  a  passage  of  the  author  who  criticized  M.  de  St,  Evremond.  Do 
not  we  see  still,  says  he,  in  the  Theological  treatises  of  human  actions,  the 
explication  of  all  the  lend  thoughts  and  actions  that  can  be  suggested  by 
lust?  Those  explications  are  not  contrary  to  modesty,  being  necessary  to 
those  whom  God  has  appointed  for  tlie  direction  of  others,  who  ought  to 
have  a  perfect  knowledge  of  sins,  with  all  their  circumstances,  in  order  to 
make  a  sinner  sensible  of  the  condition  he  is  in,  and  work  his  repentance. 
But  if  you  insist  that  those  treatises  are  inconsistent  with  modesty,  find 
out  a  science  more  contrary  to  it  than  Anatomy,  wherein  all  the  parts  of 
human  bodies  are  viewed.     Yet  there  is  no  law  against  those  who  teach  it. 

The  party  of  the  Anti-purists  would  be  more  numerous  than  it  is, 
were  it  not  that  the  vanity  or  malice  of  the  Critics  engage  several  writers 
to  side  with  the  contrary  faction.  There  is  hardly  any  book  but  what 
is  criticized,  and  narrowly  examined;  and  if  there  are  any  thoughts  or 
expressions  in  it  that  want  a  certain  niceness,  with  regard  to  obscenity, 
several  writers  will  rise  up  against  it,  with  offended  modesty.  They  fall 
upon  that  topic,  and  raise  many  clamours.  Nothing  can  be  more  easy, 
nor  more  proper  to  prepossess  the  public.  A  Critic  who  strikes  upon 
that  key  is  cried  up  by  devout  and  polite  people,  and  accounted  the  pro- 
tector of  purity;  this  is  the  reason  which  induces  him  to  declare  for  the 
Purists.  He  raises  his  reputation  two  ways :  He  sets  up  for  a  man  w  ho 
is  for  good  manners,  and  who  converses  with  the  polite  world.  This 
is  only  a  piece  of  craft  in  an  author;  Morality  is  no  further  concerned  in 
it  than  is  necessary  to  form  a  fair  out-side.  Many  who  criticize  books 
only  in  conversation,  follow  the  footsteps  of  the  Critics  in  print.  How 
many  people  inveighed  against  the  book  de  contactibus  impudicis  and 
the  Hisioria  Flagellantium,  because  Dr.  Boileau  was  none  of  their  cabal 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  141 

in  faculty  of  Theology  ?  Had  the  author,  who  is  a  man  famous  for  his 
probity  and  learning,  been  of  their  party  they  would  have  approved  his 
giving  a  lively  description  of  the  obscenities  censured  by  him ;  but  because 
they  did  not  love  him,  they  sided  with  the  Purists. 

But  though  this  faction  be  ever  so  numerous,  either  through  such 
motives,  or  more  honourable  ones,  it  is  certain  the  contrary  party  is 
considerable  enough  to  justify  those  who  stand  for  it.  The  authority  of 
the  antient  Fathers  of  the  Church  who  followed  it,  and  therein  imitated 
the  prophets  and  Apostles,  makes  their  opinion  so  highly  probable  that 
if  any  one  should  obstinately  maintain  that  it  cannot  he  held  with  a  safe 
conscience,  he  would  not  deserve  to  be  minded. 

If  the  Purists  were  contented  to  say  that  their  opinion  is  better,  we 
might  think  ourselves  obliged  to  debate  the  matter  with  them,  and  to 
compare  together  the  reasons  of  both  parties,  though  in  truth  it  seems 
very  strange  that  Christians  should  question  whether  there  is  a  better 
course  to  be  taken  than  that  of  the  sacred  writers.  However  we  might 
yield  our  right,  hear  their  objections,  and  propose  our  diflSculties,  I 
have  no  need  of  such  discussions;  it  is  enough  for  me  that  the  conduct 
of  the  Historians  or  Censurers,  who  relate  obscene  things,  is  not  only 
allowed  and  authorized  by  a  constant  practice,  but  also  very  good. 

For  if  those  authors  could  lawfully  write  what  I  have  written,  I  might 
imitate  them,  and  lawfully  quote  them.  I  desire  no  more.  Others  may 
examine,  if  they  please,  whether  I  had  done  better  in  taking  quite  another 
method. 

The  right  I  have  to  quote  what  I  have  quoted,  is  grounded  upon  two 
reasons:  One  is,  that  if  every  body  is  allowed  to  read  Catullus  and 
Martial,  Etc.,  an  author  may  be  allowed  to  quote  out  of  those  Poets  such 
passages  as  he  thinks  fit.  The  other  is,  that  if  it  be  lawful  for  an  Histor- 
ian to  relate  a  leud  action  of  Caligula,  an  author  may  relate  an  obscene 
thought  or  remark  of  Montagne  or  Bran  tome;  for  such  a  thought  or  re- 
mark is  not  near  so  criminal  as  the  infamous  actions  of  Caligula.  Who- 
ever has  a  right  to  mention  the  latter,  has  a  fortiori  a  much  greater  right 
to  mention  the  former;  and  it  would  be  a  contradiction  or  an  absurdity, 
to  suffer  that  Petronius  and  Suetonius,  and  the  most  lascivious  Poets, 
should  be  printed  and  publickly  sold  with  notes  explaining  their  most 
brutish  obscenities,  and  to  forbid  the  author  of  a  Critical  Dictionarj', 
attended  with  a  Commentary,  to  alledge  a  passage  of  those  writers  for 
the  confirmation  or  illustration  of  some  particular. 

Here  I  must  examine  three  objections  that  are  commonly  raised :  It 
is  said  that  a  physician  and  a  Casuist  are  obliged,  by  the  nature  of  their 
subject,  to  rake  into  many  filthy  things,  but  that  my  work  required 
nothing  like  it.  2.  That  they  who  write  in  T.atin,  may  take  a  liberty 
which  the  French  tongue  will  not  bear.     3.  That  what  was  allowable  in 


142  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

former  ages  ought  to  be  forbidden  in  ours,  because  of  its  prodigious 
corruption. 

The  first  objection  can  be  made  only  by  such  readers  as  are  utter 
strangers  to  the  nature  of  my  book.  It  is  not  a  book  like  those  that  are 
intituled  Bouquet  Historical  Fleurs  d'  Exemples.  Parterre  Historique, 
Lemnisei  Historiarum,  in  which  an  author  inserts  only  what  he  pleases. 
It  is  an  Historical  Dictionary  with  a  Commentary.  Lais  ought  to  have 
a  place  in  it  as  well  as  Lucretia;  and  because  it  is  a  Dictionary  which 
comes  out  after  several  others,  it  ought  chiefly  to  contain  what  is  not  to 
be  found  in  others.  The  reader  must  find  in  it,  not  only  a  general  ac- 
count of  such  actions  as  are  most  known,  but  also  a  particular  narrative 
of  those  which  are  least  known,  and  a  collection  of  what  is  dispersed  in 
several  places.  Proofs  ought  to  be  alledged,  examined,  confirmed,  and 
cleared.  In  a  word,  it  is  a  compilation.  Now  every  body  ought  to 
know,  that  a  compiler,  who  relates  things,  and  comments  upon  them,  lias 
all  the  privileges  of  a  Physician,  and  of  an  Advocate,  &c.,  as  occasion  re- 
quires; he  may  use  their  verbal  processes,  and  their  terms  of  art.  If  he 
gives  an  account  of  the  divorce  of  Lotharius  and  Tetberga,  he  may  publish 
extracts  from  Hinemar,  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  who  wrote  the  impurities 
that  were  averred  in  that  trial.  This  is  what  I  said  in  my  Remarks  upon 
the  pretended  Judgment  of  the  Public,  in  the  year  1697.  I  repeat  it 
with  this  other  passage:  "When  I  am  let  into  the  secret  of  collecting 
in  a  compilation  all  that  the  Antients  have  said  concerning  the  courtezan 
Lais  without  mentioning  leud  actions,  I  shall  own  myself  guilty.  It 
must  at  least  be  proved  against  me  that  a  Commentator  has  not  the 
privilege  of  collecting  whatever  has  been  said  of  Helen;  but  how  can  it 
be  proved  ?  Where  is  the  Legislator  who  has  told  the  compilers.  Hith- 
erto you  may  go,  but  you  must  advance  no  further;  You  must  not  quote 
Athenceus,  nor  such  a  Scholiast,  nor  such  a  Philosopher?  Has  it  not 
been  their  constant  practice  to  make  their  writings  as  full  and  extensive 
as  their  reading."  I  could  name  many  Divines,  who,  having  pitched 
upon  a  certain  subject,  have  quoted  out  of  all  authors  whatever  they 
thought  fit,  though  they  were  things  that  defiled  the  imagination;  I 
shall  name  only  three,  Lydius,  Saldenus  and  Lomeier.  They  were 
Dutch  Ministers,  the  first  at  Dort,  the  second  at  the  Hague,  and  the 
third  at  Zutphen.  They  were  very  much  esteemed  for  their  learning 
and  virtue.  Whoever  reads  the  dialogues  of  the  first  concerning  nuptial 
ceremonies,  the  Dissertations  of  the  second  de  Canis  pretio,  and  de 
Eunuchis;  and  the  Dissertations  of  the  third  concerning  kisses,  will  find 
in  them  horrid  obscenities,  and  abominable  quotations. 

It  will  be  said,  that  these  books  are  written  in  Latin.  This  is  the  second 
objection  I  am  to  answer,  and  I  shall  show  easily  the  weakness  of  it,  for 
an  obscene  object  is  no  less  offensive  to  modesty  when  it  offers  itself  in 
I^atin  to  those  who  understand  Latin,  than  when  it  offers  itself  in  French 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  143 

to  those  who  understand  French;  and  if  it  were  a  fault  to  imprint  obscene 
objects  in  our  own  and  the  reader's  imagination,  these  three  Ministers 
could  not  be  justified.  They  understood  what  they  wrote,  and  made  it 
intelligible  to  their  readers,  and  consequently  they  have  defiled  their 
imagination,  and  do  every  day  defile  the  imagination  of  those  who  read 
their  books.  But  were  it  not  a  verj'  unjust  thing  to  charge  them  with 
such  immorality  ?  They  who  write  in  French  ought  not  therefore  to  be 
charged  with  it,  for  they  do  no  more  than  understand  what  they  write, 
and  make  it  intelligible  to  their  readers. 

I  know  two  differences  will  be  alledged ;  one  is,  that  they  who  under- 
stand Latin,  are  not  so  many  as  they  who  understand  French.  The 
other  is,  that  they  who  understand  Latin  are  better  provided  than  others 
against  the  malignant  influence  of  obscene  objects.  I  make  three  an- 
swers to  this.  I  answer  in  the  first  place,  that  Latin  is  understood  by  so 
many  people  all  over  Europe  that  the  first  difference  would  not  be  suffi- 
cient to  justify  those  who  relate  or  quote  obscene  things  in  that  language; 
the  mischief  would  still  be  great,  and  very  great.  I  answer  in  the  second 
place,  that  it  is  only  by  degrees  that  study  corroborates  a  man  against  ob- 
jects which  sully  the  imagination;  and  therefore  Latin  obscenities  could 
still  have  a  dangerous  effect  upon  young  scholars.  We  hardly  find, 
generally  speaking,  that  they  are  more  chaste  and  less  debauched  thap 
the  other  young  men.  Lastly,  I  say  that  most  of  my  readers  are  persons 
who  have  applied  themselves  to  study;  for  they  who  have  not  studied, 
little  mind  a  book  intermixed  with  Greek  and  Latin  passages  as  mine  is. 
However,  they  cannot  understand  the  chief  obscenities,  since  they  are 
in  Latin.  I  conclude,  that  if  there  is  any  solidity  in  the  differences  ob- 
jected to  me,  I  may  make  an  advantage  of  it. 

I  proceed  to  the  third  objection,  which  concerns  the  great  corruption 
of  our  age.  We  have  lost,  say  they,  modesty  both  in  morals  and  in  ex- 
pressions. The  words  that  were  formerly  modest,  are  no  longer  so;  we 
must  use  others  which  excite  only  modest  ideas;  otherwise  we  should 
lose  the  little  virtue  that  remains.  I  shall  not  examine  whether  there 
is  any  reason  to  believe  that  men  are  now  more  corrupt  than  they  were 
in  former  times.  The  same  complaints  have  been  made  at  all  times, 
and  that  very  thing  ought  to  make  us  suspect  the  truth  of  them.  I  can 
hardly  believe  that  the  corruption  of  our  age  is  equal  to  that  of  the  reign 
of  Charles  IX.  and  Henry  HI.  But  allowing  it  to  be  so,  I  shall  draw  a 
quite  contrary  conclusion  from  it;  for  it  is  never  so  necessarj'  to  represent 
in  a  strong  and  lively  manner  the  turpitude  of  vice  as  when  it  prevails 
most;  and  it  is  a  wrong  way  of  stemming  the  current  of  leudness  to  cry 
it  down  with  soft  words,  and  to  scruple  to  give  an  odious  name  to  a 
prostitute.  Besides,  if  there  is  so  great  a  corruption,  what  benefit  has 
the  world  got  by  that  chastity  of  words  introduced  into  the  French  tongue 
within  these  sixty  vears,  according  to  M.  Chevreau's  calculation?    Is 


144  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

it  not  a  proof  that  the  proscription  of  pretended  obscene  ideas  is  an  in- 
significant remedy  ?  Who  told  you  they  ought  to  be  proscribed,  for  fear 
of  entirely  destroying  modesty?  Have  you  consulted  the  women  for 
whose  sake  you  chiefly  abstain  from  those  words  ?  Have  they  confessed 
to  you  that  their  honour  is  very  much  endangered  by  them  ?  Would 
they  not  rather  say  that  you  slander  them  if  you  believe  they  are  not 
proof  against  an  idea  and  a  word  ?  Would  they  not  tell  you  that  if  they 
are  for  words  that  express  leudness  faintly,  it  is  in  order  to  give  a  better 
idea  of  their  virtue,  which  has  a  stronger  attachment  to  modesty  than 
that  of  their  predecessors  ?  They  are  not  therefore  afraid  to  be  seduced 
by  obscene  objects.  Such  objects  would  rather  give  a  new  strength  to 
their  modesty.  They  are  offended  with  them  only  because  they  think 
there  is  some  unpoliteness  and  incivility  in  certain  words.  They  w  ho 
pretend  that,  considering  the  prodigious  corruption  of  our  age,  all  stories 
which  they  call  obscene  ought  to  be  avoided,  are  like  a  traveller,  who, 
in  order  to  keep  his  dirty  cloak  from  soiling,  should  take  care  not  to  put 
it  in  a  smoaking  room.  If  the  depravation  is  so  great  that  the  reading 
of  an  obscene  Historical  fact  might  excite  young  people  to  commit 
adultery,  you  may  be  sure  these  young  people  are  so  many  persons  with 
the  plague,  whom  you  are  afraid  of  making  worse  by  placing  them  near 
^  man  who  has  got  the  Itch.  A  polite  style  and  nice  expressions  will 
not  cure  such  people,  and  stop  them  upon  the  brink  of  a  precipice. 

Certainly  this  is  the  Sophism  called,  a  non  causa  pro  causa — to  assign 
for  the  cause  of  a  thing,  what  is  not  the  true  cause  of  it.  The  fate  of 
chastity  does  not  depend  upon  that;  you  do  not  go  to  the  source  of  the 
evil;  it  requires  a  quite  different  remedy.  Young  people  have  their 
minds  full  of  obscene  thoughts,  and  go  through  a  course  of  filthy  ob- 
scenities, at  least  in  words,  before  they  read  Suetonius.  Ill  conver- 
sations, unavoidable  to  every  lad  who  is  not  under  continual  inspection, 
are  a  thousand  times  more  dangerous  than  Histories  of  debauchery.  A 
learned  man  says  that  the  French  translation  of  Plutarch,  by  Amyot, 
is  dangerous  to  morality,  because  things  are  described  in  it  with  too  great 
freedom  and  plainness,  and  there  are  some  words  in  it  that  have  now  an 
immodest  signification.  He  will  give  me  leave  not  to  be  of  his  opinion. 
The  descriptions  and  phrases  of  Amyot 's  translation  have  nothing  in 
them  that  come  up  to  those  that  are  daily  heard  and  used  in  the  world. 
To  which  I  add,  that  if  this  version  of  Plutarch  was  dangerous  to  Moral- 
ity, any  other  version  of  Plutarch  would  be  too,  unless  the  translator 
took  care  to  leave  out  all  the  passages  wherein  things  are  described  with 
too  great  freedom  and  plainness. 

There  is  no  medium.  Either  a  book  must  never  mention  any  impure 
action,  or  our  censurers  must  own  it  will  always  be  dangerous,  though 
written  ever  so  nicely.     One  translation  will  be  more  polite  than  the 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  145 

other;  but  if  they  are  faithful,  the  obscene  objects  that  are  in  the  original 
will  appear  in  them. 

M,  Chevreau  affirms  that  faire  des  ensans  is  a  gross  expression,  and 
that  we  should  say  avoir  des  ensans,  and  this  may  be  granted  to  him ; 
but  if  any  one  should  further  say  that  the  first  expression  is  very  pre- 
judicial to  good  manners,  and  that  the  second  is  very  beneficial  to  them, 
he  would  be  accounted  a  silly,  foolish  man. 

Upon  a  due  examination  of  things,  it  will  appear  that  the  word  paillard 
ought  to  be  rejected  only  for  the  same  reason  that  we  reject  the  words 
contaminer,  vilipender,  vituperer,  and  a  great  many  old  French  words: 
That  is,  it  has  no  other  fault  but  to  be  obsolete.  They  who  have  nice 
ears  would  be  grated  with  the  words  I  have  just  now  mentioned.  For 
the  same  reason,  they  are  offended  with  the  words  paillard,  and  paillar- 
dise;  for  if  the  thing  signified  by  them  was  the  cause  of  their  disgust, 
they  could  not  endure  the  word  impudique,  whose  idea  is  no  less  signifi- 
cant than  that  of  paillard. 

I  shall  make  two  more  observations:  The  first  is,  that  our  Purists 
approve  in  general  what  they  condemn  in  particular.  Ask  a  Roman 
Catholic  who  is  an  enemy  to  the  Quietists  whether  an  Historian  ought 
not  to  avoid  touching  upon  things  that  sully  the  magination  ?  He  will 
answer  you,  it  is  his  duty  to  do  so.  Tell  him  some  days  after,  that  a 
relation  of  Quietism  is  come  out,  containing  a  particular  account  of  the 
abominable  impurity  of  IMolinos's  followers;  give  him  to  understand 
that  you  have  been  offended  with  the  reading  that  book,  and  that  modesty 
cannot  bear  such  things.  He  will  answer  you  that  it  is  necessary  to 
discover  the  abomination  of  those  hypocrites,  in  order  to  undeceive  many 
people  who  are  inclined  to  Quietism,  and  that  the  author  of  that  relation 
is  therefore  to  be  commended  for  exposing  to  the  public  view  the  in- 
famous p  tices  of  that  sect.  You  will  find  a  thousand  other  persons 
who  will  agree  with  you  that  we  cannot  have  too  great  a  regard  for  modest 
ears,  and  will  exclaim  with  great  zeal  against  Suetonius  and  Lamptifind: 
but  if  you  ask  them  some  days  after  whether  we  ought  to  excuse  the 
Historians  who  have  related  so  many  abominable  things  concerning  the 
Albigenses,  the  Fratricelli,  Adamites,  Picards,  Lollards,  and  Turlupins 
they  will  answer  that  the  character  of  Historians  and  zealous  Catholics 
engaged  them  to  acquaint  the  world  with  the  obscenities  of  those  heretics, 
the  forerunners  of  the  Lutherans. 

The  English  Papists,  who  fled  into  France  or  Spain,  did  not  offend 
the  chaste  ears  of  their  friends  when  they  published  several  satires  against 
Queen  Elizabeth,  wherein  they  represented  her  as  a  monster  of  loudness. 
The  Leaguers  did  not  blame  the  libels,  which  contained  impudent  de- 
scriptions of  the  leudness  of  the  court  of  Henry  III. 

The  same  inconsistency  is  observed  among  the  Protestants.  They 
did  not  complain  that  those  libels  against  Henry  III.,  their  persecutor. 


146  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY'' 

were  offensive  to  chaste  ears.  Buchanan,  who  published  a  book  con- 
cerning the  leudness  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Scotland,  is  a  man  of  blessed 
memory  among  all  the  Presbyterians;  and  yet  that  book  horribly  defiles 
the  imagination.  Nicolas  de  Clemangis,  Pelagius-Alverez,  Baptista 
Mantuanus,  and  Court  of  Rome,  are  placed  by  the  Protestants  among 
the  witnesses  of  truth.  They  quote  them  to  this  very  day  upon  all  occa- 
sions, and  long  passages  out  of  those  authors  are  to  be  found  in  most  con- 
troversial books.  You  will  find  many  of  them  in  a  French  book  of  the 
famous  Du  Plessis  Momai ;  not  long  since  three  Ministers,  two  of  whom 
are  Swiss,  and  the  third  a  Frenchman,  have  revived  those  quotations. 
Henry  Stephens,  who  tells  so  many  obscene  stories  in  his  apology  for 
Herodotus,  did  not  displease  those  of  his  party;  that  book  was  thought 
very  proper  to  ridicule  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  was  approved  upon 
that  account;  there  are  several  editions  of  it,  and  I  hear  it  has  been  lately 
reprinted  at  the  Hague.  Can  there  be  a  greater  collection  of  silly  jests, 
quirks,  and  mean  and  obscene  words,  than  what  is  to  be  found  in  some 
books  of  Sainte  Aldegonde,  who  nevertheless  was  very  much  esteemed 
and  Praised  ?  The  book  which  a  German  advertised  in  the  Nova 
Literaria  Maris  Balthici  in  the  year  1699,  which  is  to  be  intituled. 
Sacra  Pontificiorum  Priapeia,  feu  obscwna;  Papistarum  in  auricularihus 
confessionihus  qiupstiones,  quibus  S.  Confessionarii  innocentes  puellas 
Ja^minasque  ad  lasciviam  sollicitant,  will  doubtless  meet  with  a  very 
favourable  reception,  and  yet  it  will  be  very  offensive  to  chaste  ears, 
since  it  will  contain  a  collection  of  the  obscene  questions  of  confessors. 
This  puts  me  in  mind  of  the  illustrious  Peter  du  Moulin,  who  objected 
to  the  Roman  Catholics  the  obscenities  that  are  to  be  found  in  their 
books  concerning  auricular  confession.  He  took  notice  of  some  that 
are  horrid,  and  no  less  abominable  than  the  leudness  wherewith  Pro- 
copius  accuses  the  Empress  Theodora.  Several  Protestant  contro- 
versists  have  published  the  obscenities  that  are  to  be  found  in  the  books 
of  confessors. 

But  to  speak  of  a  thing  of  a  later  date,  I  say  that  the  book  intituled 
Les  Avantures  de  la  Madona  Et  de  Francois  d'  Assise,  published  in  the 
year  1701,  is  indeed  written  in  very  modest  word,  but  the  ideas  which 
the  author  excites  in  the  mind  of  the  reader  are  so  infamous,  horrid,  and 
monstrous,  that  none  but  Lucian,  and  such  like  men  can  bear  their 
enormity.  The  Protestants  are  not  offended  at  it;  on  the  contrary 
they  believe  that  the  author,  designing  to  make  every  body  sensible  of  the 
ridiculousness  of  Popery  without  engaging  in  any  controversy,  has  done 
a  service  to  the  good  cause.  Some  complaints  have  been  made  of  what 
he  says  in  favour  of  Nestorius,  but  he  has  not  been  blamed  for  the  other 
things  he  advanced,  which,  as  I  have  said  already,  startle,  terrify  and 
smite  both  the  soul  and  body.  The  Bishop  of  Meaux  being  obliged  to 
mention  a  thing  of  the  same  nature  in  order  to  show  the  extravagance  of 


PETER  BAYLE  ON  OBSCENITIES  147 

a  fanatical  woman,  thought  he  had  contracted  some  uncleanness,  and 
for  a  remedy  had  recourse  to  this  prayer:  "But  let  us  pass  to  another 
subject;  and  thou,  O  Lord,  If  I  durst,  I  would  beseech  thee  to  send  one 
of  thy  seraphims  with  a  hot  burning  coal  to  purify  my  lips  defiled  with 
this  narrative,  though  necessary."  Take  notice  of  this  last  word;  it 
makes  much  against  those  who  say  that  the  imagination  of  the  reader 
ought  to  be  regarded  even  at  the  expense  of  truth.  That  prelate,  who 
is  othenN  ise  so  careful  to  avoid  obscenities  that  he  dares  not  use  the  word 
paillarde  (whore)  without  making  an  excuse  for  it,  did  not  think  that 
the  obscene  and  horrid  extravagances  of  Madame  Guyon  ought  to  be 
suppressed. 

I  do  not  mean  that,  generally  speaking,  all  the  Protestants  who  have 
behaved  as  I  have  mentioned  design  to  bring  Historians,  Compilers, 
and  Commentators  under  the  yoke  of  the  purists.  I  only  believe  that 
several  of  them  pretend  to  do  it  in  general ;  but  since  they  approve  after- 
wards when  they  come  to  particulars  what  they  had  condemned,  their 
taste  and  their  testimony  can  do  me  no  prejudice,  and  I  may  take  ad- 
vantage of  the  opinion  of  all  the  rest  who  are  consistent  with  themselves, 
both  in  general  and  in  particular. 

It  cannot  be  pretended  that  for  the  good  of  the  Church  an  author  may 
be  allowed  to  write  things  that  sully  the  imagination,  and  that  in  this 
case  he  is  to  be  commended  for  doing  it;  this  assertion,  I  say,  cannot  be 
admitted;  for  if  the  publishing  of  obscenities  was  an  ill  thing  in  itself, 
it  could  not  be  used  for  the  benefit  of  the  good  cause,  without  trans- 
gressing against  a  command  of  God,  importing  that  we  must  not  do  evil 
that  good  may  come. 

I  proceed  to  the  second  observation.  Have  I  not  acted  against  this 
precept  of  Isocrates,  believe  that  whatever  cannot  he  honestly  done,  cannot 
he  honestly  spoken?  And  ought  not  this  precept  to  be  a  law  to  all  Chris- 
tians, since  St  Paul  would  not  have  any  thing  that  is  filthy  to  be  named 
among  them  ?  I  answer,  that  this  excellent  axiom  condemns  only  the 
ill  custom  which  prevails  among  both  young  people  and  married  men, 
to  speak  on  all  occasions  of  their  lend  practices,  and  impudently  to  dis- 
course of  every  thing  relating  to  that  sort  of  sensuality.  It  is  at  least 
certain  that  the  apostle  never  meant  that  men  should  forbear  talking 
seriously,  honestly,  and  historically  of  a  lend  action.  He  did  not  de- 
prive parents  of  the  liberty  of  examining  their  children  concerning  the 
Historical  facts  contained  in  the  Bible,  and  making  them  repeat  that 
Jacob 's  daughter  was  ravished,  that  a  son  of  David  ravished  his  own 
sister,  Etc.  Nothing  can  be  more  dishonest  than  this  action  of  David 's 
son,  and  yet  there  is  no  dishonesty  in  repeating,  preaching,  and  printing 
it.  Could  St  Paul  forbid  the  mentioning  of  it  ?  Would  he  have  pro- 
hibited the  reading  of  the  Bible  ?  Was  he  not  willing  that  his  letters 
should  be  read,  and  that  the  very  children  should  know  what  he  wrote 


148  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

to  the  Romans  concerning  the  abominable  Hves  of  the  Heathen  ?  A 
man  must  be  mad  to  think  that  the  precept  of  Isocrates  means  that  a 
school-boy  should  never  give  an  account  to  his  tutor,  or  to  his  father, 
of  such  passages  of  the  Iliad  as  concern  the  adulteries  of  the  gods. 

If  one  had  a  mind  to  carry  the  dispute  to  the  utmost,  he  might  say 
that  robbing,  betraying,  lying,  and  killing,  are  dishonest  tilings,  and 
that  there  is  no  dishonesty  in  mentioning  those  crimes ;  but  as  it  is  evident 
that  the  precept  of  Isocrates  concerns  only  sins  contrary  to  chastity, 
such  an  objection  would  be  a  meer  cavil.  The  Cynics  and  the  Stoics 
made  use  of  it  to  justify  their  doctrine,  that  there  is  no  obscenity  in  any 
word;  Cicero  confutes  them  only  by  supposing  that  there  is  a  natural 
shame. 

It  is  time  to  conclude  this  long  dissertation.  The  clearing  up  of  this 
matter  is  more  difficult  than  people  imagine.  I  hope  my  justification 
will  be  fully  approved,  not  by  those  who  are  too  presumptuous  to  see 
that  we  labour  to  undeceive  them,  but  by  those  who  have  been  induced 
to  believe  on  the  credit  of  other  persons,  or  upon  light  and  superficial 
reasons.  If  they  were  excusable  for  being  dazzled  with  specious  appear- 
ances, before  I  published  these  four  EXPLANATIONS,  they  can  be 
no  longer  so  if  they  obstinately  persist  in  their  error.  They  would  have 
done  well  to  follow  the  command  of  Jesus  Christ,  jvdge  not  according  to 
the  appearances,  but  judge  righteous  judgment.  They  have  yielded  to 
the  first  impressions  of  the  objects,  without  waiting  for  the  reasons  on 
both  sides;  which  is  always  necessary,  especially  when  we  are  to  judge 
of  a  writer  who  does  not  follow  the  most  common  road.  We  should  im- 
mediately suspect  that  he  has  some  reasons  for  it,  and  that  he  would  not 
make  such  a  step,  if,  upon  a  long  examination  of  his  subject,  he  had  not 
considered  it  on  every  side  more  carefully  than  those  who  only  read  his 
work.  This  well  grounded  suspicion  should  have  made  people  very 
cautious  and  slow  in  giving  their  judgment,  but  what  is  done  cannot  be 
undone;  all  that  can  be  hoped  is,  that  their  second  thoughts  will  be  better 
than  the  first. 

I  shall  here  acquaint  my  readers  that,  in  several  places  of  this  Diction- 
ary, they  will  find  some  apologetical  reflections  immediately  after  such 
things  as  may  offend  scrupulous  persons. 


SECTION  V 

THE    MODERN     CENSORSHIP    OF    OBSCENITY 


LOUIS  F.  POST:  "Our  Advancing  and  Despotic  Postal  Censorship." 
Reprinted  from  "The  PvbHc." 

I. 

SINCE  long  before  the  foundation  of  the  Federal  government,  Amer- 
ican pubUc  sentiment  has  cherished  freedom  of  the  press  above 
every  other  condition  of  popular  Hberty  except  trial  by  jury.  With  the 
press  untrammeled  our  fathers  believed  that  no  menace  to  hberty  could 
really  gain  a  foothold,  if  an  innovation,  or  long  endure,  if  already  estab- 
lished; whereas,  if  the  press  were  subject  to  censorship,  they  felt  that 
autocracy  would  flourish  as  in  their  day  it  did  throughout  Europe  and 
as  in  ours  it  still  does  in  Russia. 

They  did  not  mean  that  the  press  should  have  Hcense  to  attack  per- 
sonal reputations  or  offend  public  morals  with  impunity.  They  con- 
ceded that  pubUshers  should  be  held  to  account  for  libelous  and  indecent 
pubhcations.  But  they  insisted  that  guilt  should  be  determined  by 
juries,  after  the  act,  and  upon  a  full  hearing  of  both  sides ;  and  not  by 
bureau  officials  in  advance  of  the  act  and  ex  'parte. 

Much  has  been  said  against  this  view  on  the  ground  that  it  would 
permit  the  accomplishment  of  wrongs  which  once  done  cannot  be  un- 
done ;  and  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  objection  is  not  without  plausi- 
bility when  particular  grievances  are  considered  irrespective  of  general 
effects.  But  our  fathers  realized  that  the  greater  danger  lies  in  empow- 
ering officials  to  impose  upon  publishers  a  decree  of  silence.  A  person 
outraged  by  libel  would  be  vindicated  by  the  verdict  that  condenmed 
his  libeler;  common  standards  of  public  morals  would  be  strengthened 
by  the  verdicts  of  juries  if  the  standards  were  true,  and  weakened  by 
assault  only  in  case  they  were  false.  But  under  a  censorship,  private 
outrages  upon  public,*  rights  might  go  unrevealed  and  unscathed;  true 
standards  of  public  morals  might  be  perverted  and  false  ones  perpetu- 
ated ;  and  with  a  pretense  of  protecting  personal  reputation  and  public 
morals,  bureaucrats  might  insidiously  undermine  popular  liberty. 

Our  fathers  therefore  made  it  a  part  of  their  political  religion  that  every 
one  should  be  free  to  print  and  publish  whatever  he  would,  subject  to 
being  held  accountable  therefor  by  a  jury  of  his  fellow  citizens.  So 
wedded  were  they  to  this  theory  of  a  free  press  accountable  only  to  a  jury 
of  the  people,  that  the  result  of  a  law-suit  in  the  old  Colony  of  New  York 
was  acclaimed  throughout  the  Colonies  and  helped  kindle  the  fires  of 

149 


150  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

the  Revolution,  because  the  jury  had  found  that  an  alleged  Ubel  against 
the  Colonial  authorities  was  justified  and  the  pubUsher  not  guilty,  not- 
withstanding that  the  Colonial  judge  before  whom  the  case  was  tried 
had  ordered  the  jury  to  convict. 

So  vital  did  this  sentiment  remain  after  the  Revolution,  that  the  Fed- 
eral party  went  down  in  poUtical  wreck  and  ruin  because  it  became  re- 
sponsible for  the  "sedition  act,"  which  evaded  the  principle  of  a  free 
but  accountable  press  by  making  Ubels  against  the  President  and  other 
Federal  officials  triable  before  judges  of  the  President's  own  appoint- 
ment and  juries  selected  by  his  own  appointees. 

So  vital  did  that  sentiment  continue  down  the  troublous  century  just 
ended,  that  even  in  the  heat  of  the  anti-slavery  agitation  a  pro-slavery 
Senate  revolted  at  a  suggestion  that  anti-slavery  newspapers  be  made 
unmailable. 

We  believe  that  this  wholesome  sentiment  of  hberty  survives  in  the 
American  mind.  Though  a  great  influx  of  foreigners  in  recent  years — 
foreigners  seeking  not  greater  liberty  as  in  earher  times,  but  only  better 
wages — may  have  had  the  effect  of  making  American  landmarks  of 
liberty  fade  in  the  public  opinion  of  to-day,  yet  the  autocratic  conditions 
of  which  we  get  reports  from  Russia  are  abhorrent  enough  to  stir  even 
the  dullest  mind  to  some  sense  of  the  dangers  which  go  with  a  bureau- 
cratic censorship  of  the  press.  It  is  an  innovation  which  we  believe 
American  public  opinion  would  not  consciously  tolerate.  Were  any 
direct  attempt  made  to  subject  to  the  control  of  a  government  bureau 
the  right  to  print  and  publish  freely,  subject  only  to  accountability  to 
juries,  it  would  surely  overwhelm  the  political  party  responsible  for  it, 
as  the  Federal  party  of  a  hundred^  years  ago  was  overwhelmed,  with 
the  condemnation  of  an  indignant  people.  .  .  . 

II. 

Let  us  consider  first  how  a  situation  so  serious  might  come  about. 

If  an  autocratic  coterie,  acute,  skilful  and  patient,  were  deliberately 
set  upon  the  purpose  of  creating  a  press  censorship  Hke  that  of  Russia, 
in  a  republic  like  ours,  where  the  traditions  and  the  laws  guaranteed 
freedom  of  the  press  subject  to  accountability  only  to  juries,  and  where 
public  opinion  clung  tenaciously  to  the  spirit  of  those  traditions,  how 
would  that  coterie  begin  ? 

Not  by  trying  to  repeal  the  laws  nor  by  violently  overriding  them. 
Either  would  be  a  hopeless  undertaking  in  those  circumstances.  Such 
a  coterie  would  begin  by  trying  to  invest  with  censorial  power  that  bu- 
reau of  the  government,  if  there  were  such  a  bureau,  which  managed 
the  distribution  among  the  people  of  written  and  printed  matter. 

In  doing  this,  the  coterie  would  at  first  carefully  limit  the  censorship 
to  such  written  and  printed  matter  as  was  most  intensely  offensive  to 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  151 

public  morals ;  for  that  would  be  along  the  line  of  least  resistance.  A 
vast  majority  of  the  people,  their  thought  centered  upon  offenses  against 
moraUty  and  drawn  away  from  offenses  against  Uberty,  would  cordially 
approve  the  innovation. 

Later  a  similar  censorship  would  be  extended  by  this  coterie  of  Uberty- 
destroyers,  to  written  and  printed  matter  somewhat  less  offensive  to 
pubhc  morals;  and  thus  on  and  on  by  easy  stages  to  such  as  was  less 
and  less  offensive. 

And  the  same  acute  discretion  would  be  observed  in  the^execution 
of  those  powers  of  the  censorship.  The  bureau  so  invested  with  cen- 
sorial authority  would  at  first  execute  its  powers  only  against  violators 
of  the  most  sacred  tenets  of  pubhc  morality.  As  its  censorial  powers 
were  thereby  commended  to  public  approval,  they  would  be  appUed  to 
less  repulsive  offenders  or  those  who  occupied  debatable  ground,  some 
of  whom  might  bring  the  subject  into  the  courts. 

But  the  courts,  keen  to  see  that  a  decision  in  favor  of  minor  or  du- 
bious offenders  would  make  a  precedent  favorable  to  the  repulsive 
class,  would  prefer  making  a  precedent  against  liberty  to  making  one 
against  public  morals.  A  few  such  precedents  against  liberty,  in  the 
guise  of  precedents  for  moraUty,  and  the  hardest  work  of  the  censor- 
seeking  coterie  would  be  nearly  done. 

The  bureau  could  then  begin,  on  pretense  of  suppressing  immorality, 
to  discriminate  against  the  pubUcation  of  legitimate  opinions.  Over 
this  there  would  be  a  struggle  in  the  courts.  But  when  the  courts  had 
decided  that  the  bureau  was  engaged  in  executive  work,  and  that  its 
interference  therein  with  private  rights,  even  to  the  extent  of  seizing 
and  confiscating  private  property  upon  evidence  satisfactory  to  the  bu- 
reaucrat, must  not  be  prevented,  the  censor-seeking  work  of  the  coterie 
would  be  complete. 

After  that,  there  would  be  nothing  to  Umit  Ihe  scope  of  the  censorship. 

An  object  of  sufficient  importance  to  the  coterie,  and  a  confederate 
of  sufficient  nerve  at  the  head  of  the  bureau,  would  make  a  censorship 
which  the  crude  censors  of  Russia  might  envy. 

By  deciding  as  to  any  periodical  whatever,  and  however  falsely,  upon 
evidence  satisfactory  to  himself,  that  its  contents  were  offensive  to  public 
morals,  the  head  of  this  bureau  could  effectually  suppress  that  publica- 
tion. And  the  mere  fact  that  he  could  do  this,  would  have  a  powerful 
effect  in  influencing  all  periodicals  to  support  or  oppose  public  policies 
as  the  persons  or  parties  controlling  the  censorizing  bureau  might  direct. 

It  is  by  insidious  steps,  such  as  are  here  suggested  as  possible,  that 
the  public  opinion  of  free  peoples  has  always  been  suppressed,  and  that 
their  other  Uberties  have  been  wrested  from  them  in  the  consequent 
silence. 


152  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

III. 

Now,  in  this  country  there  is  just  such  a  bureau  as  we  have  imagined 
above.  It  is  known  as  the  Post  Oflfice  Department.  That  department 
controls  the  dehvery  and  receipt  of  almost  all  the  written  and  printed 
matter  of  the  country.  Nearly  all  private  correspondence,  nearly  all 
books,  nearly  all  periodicals,  are  circulated  by  its  machinery.  It  has 
gone  so  extensively  into  the  business  of  distributing  letters  and  period- 
icals for  the  people  that  all  business  is  dependent  upon  it,  and  any  peri- 
odical against  which  it  might  discriminate  could  not  long  continue  pub- 
lication. 

To  invest  this  department  with  power  to  grant  or  refuse  its  distribu- 
ting service  to  periodicals,  with  reference  to  its  own  judgment  of  the 
legitimacy  of  their  printed  contents,  would  be  to  place  at  its  mercy  every 
periodi(!al  which  the  department  might  wish  to  destroy. 

But  not  only  have  we  such  a  bureau  in  this  country,  in  the  Post  Office 
Department,  but  that  department  has  been  gradually  invested,  in  very 
much  the  manner  indicated  above,  with  the  censorial  powers  outlined 
above  as  possible.  And  it  has  exercised  those  powers  with  similarly 
aggressive  discretion.  We  do  not  mean  that  there  has  been  a  conscious 
and  definite  purpose  of  creating  a  dangerous  censorship,  as  in  the  im- 
agined case;  but  that  there  has  been  similar  progress  in  a  direction  in 
which  similar  results  are  the  inevitable  ultimate. 

The  investiture  of  the  Post  Office  Department  with  arbitrary  censor- 
ship over  the  press,  began  (as  we  have  indicated  in  our  suppositions  that 
such  a  censorship  probably  would  begin),  with  legislation  against  such 
postal  matter  as  was  most  intensely  offensive  to  public  morals.  Ob- 
scene letters  and  papers  were  declared  to  be  unmailable  and  the  act  of 
mailing  them  a  crime.  To  this  innovation  objection  was  difficult.  No 
appeal  to  the  principle  of  freedom  of  the  press  could  be  made  which 
would  not  seem  like  an  attempt  at  shielding  vile  offenses  with  appeals 
to  political  traditions  and  abstractions — like  opposing  "mere  general- 
izations "  or  theories  of  government  to  actual  immoralities.  Under  cover 
of  the  silence  which  decency  thus  imposed,  the  postal  censorship  gained 
a  foothold. 

Then  further  steps  were  taken.  The  ban  of  unmailability  was  ex- 
tended to  mail  matter  in  furtherance  of  frauds.  Decency  did  not  im- 
pose silence  here,  but  what  could  be  said  against  laws  for  the  suppression 
of  fraud  ?  Nothing  that  would  not  make  the  objector  seem  to  be  an 
apologist  for  actual  crime  on  pretense  of  devotion  to  a  mere  "  theory  of 
hberty." 

Nor  was  much  difficulty  encountered  in  extending  the  postal  censor- 
ship against  obscene  and  fraudulent  mail  matter  to  mail  matter  in  con- 
nection with  lotteries.  Public  opinion  had  become  ripe  for  excluding 
hat  business  from  its  old  place  in  the  category  of  the  legitimate,  and  ob- 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  15» 

jections  to  this  extension  of  the  censorship  were  rebuked  as  sympathetic 
with  lotteries,  instead  of  being  accorded  a  fair  hearing  in  the  interest  of 
freedom  of  the  press. 

While  censorial  statutes  were  accumulating,  criminal  prosecutions 
which  never  got  before  the  highest  court  were  building  up  a  mass  of 
precedents,  and  rules  and  rulings  of  the  Postal  Department  were  estab- 
lishing censorial  lines  of  administrative  procedure  which  have  crystal- 
ized  with  time.  And  so  it  has  come  about  that  the  Postal  Department 
has  acquired  and  is  actually  exercising  the  ominous  censorial  power  to 
which  we  invite  attention. 

Upon  decrees  sent  out  from  a  bureau  at  Washington,  all  their  corre- 
spondence is  withheld  from  individuals,  on  the  charge,  established  before 
no  judicial  tribunal,  that  at  some  time  in  the  past  they  have  solicited 
correspondence  through  the  mails  for  purposes  of  fraud;  and  legitimate 
periodicals  are  suppressed,  on  pretense  that  they  contain  obscene  lan- 
guage or  sentiments.  In  none  of  these  cases  is  the  alleged  offender 
given  a  jury  trial,  in  none  does  his  case  come  before  a  judicial  tribunal, 
in  all  his  nearest  approach  to  a  trial  is  before  attaches  of  the  censoring 
bureau  which  makes  the  charge,  and  in  some  the  specific  accusations 
are  withheld  from  him. 

IV. 
With  the  details  of  one  of  these  cases  of  newspaper  suppression  we 
have  been  at  the  pains  to  make  ourselves  acquainted.  It  is  the  case  of 
Lucifer,  a  Chicago  publication,  issues  of  which  have  but  recently  been 
suppressed  by  the  postal  department.  Our  information  relates  to  a 
previous  suppression  for  the  same  alleged  cause,  and  not  to  the  recent 
one.  Whether  the  latter  would  prove  to  be  similar  to  the  former  we  do 
not  know,  nor  do  we  regard  it  as  important  to  the  point  under  consid- 
eration, which  is  not  the  propriety  or  impropriety  of  suppression  in  a 
particular  case,  but  the  dangers  of  suppression  in  this  manner  in  any 
case.  As  the  instance  to  which  our  information  relates  illustrates  the 
tendency  toward  a  censorship  of  the  press,  it  is  sufficient  for  the  purpose 
in  hand. 

Our  inquiry  into  the  matter  began  with  the  following  letter  of  January 
27,  1904,  to  the  postmaster  at  Chicago : 

"  I  am  informed  that  the  Chicago  office  stopped  the  transportation  as 
second-class  matter  of  a  Chicago  weekly  called  Lticifer,  the  issue  of 
December  17th;  that  the  reason  given  was  violation  of  section  497  of 
Postal  Laws  and  Regulations;  that  nothing  in  apparent  violation  of  that 
section  appeared  in  the  issue  in  question;  and  that  your  office  refuses 
definite  information.  Will  you  kindly  inform  me,  for  public  use,  what  ^ 
the  specific  offense  of  the  issue  in  question  was  ?" 

In  his  reply  of  January  29th,  the  Chicago  postmaster  courteously 
stated  that  the  Chicago  office  had  not  originated  the  act  of  suppression. 


154  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

but    had    merely    obeyed    orders    from    Washington,      He    wrote; 

"The  issue  of  Lucifer,  the  Light-Bearer,  dated  December  17,  1903, 
was  refused  admittance  to  the  mails  by  direction  of  the  Department  at 
Washington,  which  ruled  that  matter  in  that  edition  was  in  violation  of 
section  497  of  the  post  office  laws  and  regulations.  Under  date  of  De- 
cember 19,  1903,  the  publisher  was  advised  to  this  effect." 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  Chicago  postmaster  did  not  deny  that 
specific  information  of  his  offense  had  been  withheld  from  the  accused 
publisher,  and  that  he  did  not  give  the  information  asked  for  in  the  letter 
to  which  his  was  in  reply,  namely — the  specific  offense.  In  this  reticence 
he  was  doubtless,  as  events  subsequently  indicated,  obeying  orders 
from  Washington.  It  is  also  to  be  observed  that  the  publisher  was  not 
notified  of  the  suppression  until  two  days  after  his  date  of  publication. 

Having  learned  from  the  Chicago  postmaster  that  he  had  acted  under 
orders  from  Washington,  and  been  tactfully  though  courteously  refused 
information  as  to  the  specific  offense  of  Lucifer,  we  extended  our  inquiry 
to  the  Postmaster  General  in  a  letter  of  February  13,  1904.  In  replying 
by  letter  of  March  3,  1904,  the  First  Assistant  Postmaster  General  wrote: 

"  I  have  received  your  letter  of  February  13th,  addressed  to  the  Post- 
master General,  in  reference  to  the  exclusion  from  the  mails  of  a  publi- 
cation entitled  Lvcifer,  the  Light-Bearer.  The  issue  of  December  19th 
contained  matter  which  is  unmailable  under  section  497,  Postal  Laws 
and  Regulations,  and  therefore  the  Postmaster  at  Chicago  was  instructed 
to  treat  copies  of  that  issue  in  his  office  in  the  same  manner  as  other  un- 
mailable matter  is  treated." 

Still  we  had  failed  to  get  information  of  the  specific  charge  against 
Lucifer,  sufficient  to  enable  us  by  examining  the  paper  to  form  a  judg- 
ment as  to  the  official  good  faith  of  its  suppression ;  and  from  an  exami- 
nation of  the  whole  paper  we  had  been  unable  to  discover  anything  ap- 
parently justifying  the  charge  of  violating  the  postal  section  referred  to. 
Accordingly  we  asked  of  the  Postmaster  General,  by  letter  of  March 
14th,  1904,  that  he  do  us  the  favor  of  indicating — 

"the  particular  article  or  articles,  by  their  title  or  otherwise,  which  are 
regarded  by  the  department  as  unmailable  under  section  497  ?  If  you 
could  indicate  the  particular  paragraphs  of  the  articles  that  are  regarded 
as  unmailable,  I  should  be  obliged." 

In  answer  to  that  inquiry  the  Acting  First  Assistant  Postmaster  Gen- 
eral, in  a  letter  of  March  29th,  wrote: 

"You  ask  that  the  particular  article  to  which  exception  was  taken  by 
the  Post  Office  Department  be  pointed  out  to  you.  If  you  will  kindly 
call  upon  our  Inspector  in  charge  at  Chicago,  who  has  the  copy  of  the 
paper  to  which  you  refer,  that  officer  will  be  able  to  comply  with  your 
request," 

An  effort  to  act  upon  this  suggestion,  and  the  result,  are  described  in 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  155 

a  letter  of  June  13,  1904,  to  the  Postmaster  General,  in  which,  after  a 
recital  of  previous  correspondence,  we  wrote: 

"  There  seems  to  be  some  misunderstanding,  possibly  on  my  own  part, 
though  I  do  not  see  how  I  am  at  fault.  In  reference  to  your  Acting 
First  Assistant's  letter,  I  have  called  on  the  inspector  in  charge  at  Chi- 
cago and  shown  him  your  Acting  First  Assistant's  letter.  After  reading 
it  he  told  me  that  he  could  not  supply  me  with  the  information  because 
his  assistant,  Mr.  McAfee,  in  whose  charge  the  matter  had  been,  was 
then  out  of  the  city,  but  that  upon  the  return  of  Mr.  McAfee  he,  the 
Chief  Inspector,  would  notify  me  and  supply  me  with  the  information. 
Accordingly,  a  few  days  later  a  messenger  called  at  my  office,  and,  I 
being  out,  left  word  for  me  to  call  up  Mr.  McAfee  by  telephone.  When 
I  did  so,  Mr.  McAfee  was  out  of  his  office.  When  I  did  so  again,  the 
next  day,  he  had  gone  out  of  the  city.  But  on  the  latter  occasion  the 
chief  clerk  in  the  Inspector's  office,  learning  my  identity  and  knowing 
my  object,  informed  me  that  the  Chicago  office  cannot  furnish  me  with 
the  requested  information.  He  explained  that  the  suppression  of 
Lucifer  under  section  497  had  not  taken  place  under  the  initiative  of  the 
Chicago  office,  but  had  been  ordered  by  the  First  Assistant  Postmaster 
General,  and  that  the  Chicago  office  does  not  know  what  the  objection- 
able matter  was.  In  answer  to  my  further  inquiry  he  assured  me,  but 
with  entire  courtesy,  that  I  might  regard  this  reply  as  official  and  treat 
it  accordingly.  I  am  therefore  under  the  necessity  of  again  troubling 
your  office  in  this  matter.  W^U  you  kindly  arrange  in  some  proper  and 
convenient  way  to  supply  me,  for  legitimate  newspaper  use,  with  the 
information  I  am  seeking,  namely,  what  are  the  particular  articles, 
designating  them  if  possible  by  their  titles,  on  account  of  which  the  Post 
Office  Department  suppressed  the  issue  of  December  17,  1903,  of  Lu- 
cifer, the  Light-Bearer,  of  Chicago,  as  unmailable  under  section  497  of 
the  Postal  Laws  and  Regulations,  and  what  are  the  particular  para- 
graphs of  such  articles  in  which  the  objectionable  matter  is  to  be  found." 

No  attention  having  been  paid  to  this  inquiry,  after  the  lapse  of  more 
than  a  month,  we  addressed  the  Postmaster  General,  by  letter  of  July 
23,  1904,  offering  to  forward  a  copy  of  our  letter  of  the  13th  of  June,  if 
the  original  had  failed  to  reach  the  Department.  Still  without  reply, 
on  the  19th  of  August,  1904,  we  wrote  again  to  the  Postmaster  General, 
referring  to  our  two  previous  letters  and  asking : 

"  Will  you  kindly  give  me  the  information  requested  in  those  letters 
or  advise  me  of  the  time  when  you  can  probably  do  so,  if  delay  is  neces- 
sary  .'* 

This  request  brought  a  reply  from  the  Acting  First  Assistant  Post- 
master General,  dated  August  25,  1904,  as  follows: 

"  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  19th  instant  calling  attention  to 
the  fact  that  vours  of  June  13th  had  not  been  answered.     Replying 


156  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

specifically  to  your  inquiry  I  have  to  state  that  the  article  on  page*^ 
.  ,  .  and  the  article  on  page*  .  .  .  are,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Depart- 
ment, offensive  under  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  September  26,  1888." 

The  reply  gives  no  indication  of  the  paragraph  or  paragraphs  of  the 
articles  mentioned  as  containing  the  matter  which  in  the  opinion  of  the 
postal  censor  is  unmailable,  although  this  information  was  distinctly 
requested.  We  are  obliged,  therefore,  if  we  would  examine  into  the 
good  faith  of  the  censor,  to  consider  the  articles  as  a  whole,  word  by 
word,  thought  by  thought,  from  first  word  to  last.  This  necessity  is 
in  itself  significant  of  the  arbitrary  and  secretive  methods  of  the  Depart- 
ment in  passing  upon  questions  involving  freedom  of  publication. 

Upon  examination  of  the  articles  we  failed  to  find  anything,  either  in 
the  thought  alone  or  the  phrase  alone,  which  could  be  condemned  by 
the  ordinary  standards  of  decency.  While  it  is  true  that  the  colloquial 
phrasing  is  so  ill-adapted  to  the  sociological  subject  discussed  as  to 
offend  good  taste,  taste  is  not  yet  subject  to  postal  censorship.  And 
while  neither  the  subject  nor  the  phrasing  would  be  appropriate  at  a 
young  people's  party,  this  is  no  test  of  postal  propriety. 

The  subject-matter,  considered  by  itself,  is  a  legitimate  one  for  public 
discussion  among  adults;  and,  expressed  in  philosophical  phrasing,  it 
could  not  possibly  be  objected  to  as  salacious. 

The  phrasing,  considered  by  itself,  is  not  out  of  the  common  in  the 
current  literature  of  fiction.  If  any  well-known  novelist  had  put  these 
two  articles,  thought  by  thought  and  word  by  word,  into  the  mouths  of 
characters  in  a  problem  novel,  it  is  almost  inconceivable  that  any  pub- 
lishing house,  other  than  the  American  Tract  Society,  would  have  sup- 
pressed them;  and  if  the  postal  censors  had  condemned  them  as  ob- 
scene by  excluding  the  novel  from  the  mails,  a  cry  of  derision  would 
have  echoed  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other. 

The  inference  seems  to  us  unavoidable,  that  the  issue  of  Lucifer  of 
December  17,  1903,  was  excluded  from  the  mails,  not  because  of  any 
violation  of  the  postal  statute,  but  because  it  advocated  doctrines  of 
social  life  at  variance  with  those  to  which  the  postal  censors  are  pro- 

*We  omit  the  page  numbers  and  the  titles  of  the  two  articles  which  the  Acting  First  Assistant 
Postmaster  General  gave  in  his  letter.  Our  reason  for  the  omission  is  that  such  publication 
here  might  subject  this  issue  of  The  Public  to  suppression  by  order  of  the  postal  censor  bureau. 
The  same  Act  of  Congress  by  authority  of  which  Lucifer  was  censored  for  publishing  those  arti- 
cles, provides  also  that  "notice  of  any  kind  giving  information,  directly  or  indirectly  where  or 
how  or  of  whom  or  by  what  means  an  "obscene  .  .  .  publication  of  an  indecent  character"  "may 
be  obtained,"  is  itself  "non-mailable  matter."  Since  the  censors  have  already  decided  that  the 
articles  in  question  are  obscene  and  indecent,  they  might  decide  that  the  naming  of  them  by  title 
and  page  in  connection  with  the  name  of  the  publication  in  which  they  appeared,  is  a  notice 
making  the  paper  publishing  it  also  guilty  under  the  statute  and  therefore  subject  to  suppression. 
Were  they  to  so  decide,  they  couki  suppress  this  issue  of  The  Public,  and  we  should  be  without 
protection  or  redress  or  any  power  to  get  a  judicial  trial.  Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  that  part  of  the 
Acting  First  Assistant  Postmaster  General's  letter  which  we  have  excised  in  quoting  it  above, 
is  not  absolutely  necessary  for  the  information  of  our  readers,  we  prefer  to  avoid  an  unnecessary 
risk  of  censorship,  by  omitting  it. 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  157 

fessedly  devoted.     In  other  words,  it  was  suppressed,  not  for  decency's 
sake,  but  for  opinion's  sake. 

With  the  opinions  intended  to  be  censored  by  the  suppression  of  Lu- 
cifer, we  are  entirely  out  of  sympathy.  Were  they  up  for  discussion 
under  circumstances  demanding  our  participation,  we  should  emphat- 
ically condemn  them — not  because  they  are  unconventional,  but  because 
we  believe  them  to  be  unsound.  But  the  question  here  is  not  whether 
they  are  unsound.     It  is  whether  their  discussion  shall  be  forbidden. 

On  that  issue  we  yield  to  no  one  in  demanding  the  fullest  freedom 
of  discussion  for  every  debatable  question.  Nothing  but  error  can  suf- 
fer from  honest  debate.  And  while  we-  recognize  the  propriety  as  to 
taste,  and  the  decency  as  to  morals,  of  limiting  discussions  of  some  sub- 
jects, not  only  conventionally  but  by  law  if  necessary,  to  appropriate 
occasions,  we  do  not  regard  the  use  of  the  mails  for  the  distribution  of 
any  discussion  whatever,  for  adult  readers,  and  in  good  faith,  as  a  vio- 
lation of  the  proprieties  of  discussion.  We  do  regard  the  denial  of  their 
use  for  such  purposes  as  a  menace  to  one  of  the  most  important  safe- 
guards of  liberty,  and  an  obstruction  to  the  most  important  promoter 
of  progress. 

V. 

Yet  we  hesitate  to  denounce  the  postal  censor  for  suppressing  a  paper 
for  its  opinions.  To  denounce  him  for  that  might  be  quite  unjust.  He 
only  suppressed  disagreeable  opinions,  and  that  is  what  most  men  would 
do  who  have  the  power.  It  is  what  the  censors  of  the  Czar  do,  when 
they  forbid  pubUcation  of  the  proceedings  of  a  national  congress.  It  is 
what  our  own  censors  in  the  Philippines  did,  when  they  forbade  the  pub- 
hcation  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  It  is  what  we  ourselves 
might  be  tempted  to  do  if  we  were  at  the  head  of  the  postal  censor  bu- 
reau— since  the  opinions  as  to  marriage  which  Lucifer  advocates  are 
repugnant  to  our  views.  If  we  had  the  power  as  censor  to  read  "  offen- 
sive to  the  statute"  into  Lucifer's  opinions,  or  into  those  of  any  other 
periodical  whose  opinions  on  social  philosophy,  religion,  or  politics  we 
reject,  we  might  give  way  to  the  temptation  to  which  the  postal  censor 
appears  to  have  succumbed  in  Lucifer's  case. 

But  all  this  is  one  of  the  very  reasons  why  powers  of  censorship,  even 
for  the  best  of  purposes,  and  though  reposed  in  persons  of  hberal  dis- 
position, are  dangerous  powers. 

Power  fattens  upon  what  it  feeds  on.  Little  by  little,  from  suppress- 
ing evil  reading  to  suppressing  that  which  is  doubtful,  it  advances  to 
the  suppression  of  unpopular  opinions,  and  then  to  those  that  are  popu- 
lar; and  it  makes  its  advances  so  insidiously  that  all  freedom  of  opinion 
is  throttled  by  censors  before  the  people  realize  that  it  has  been  as- 
sailed. 

That  the  point  of  suppressing  unpopular  opinions  in  one  branch  of 


158  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

social  philosophy  has  already  been  reached,  is  evident  from  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  Lucifer  case  which  we  describe  above. 

Here  is  a  pubUcation  depending  for  existence,  as  all  others  do,  upon 
regularity  of  mail  circulation.  Without  notice,  accusation,  specifica- 
tion, trial,  or  hearing  of  any  sort,  a  regular  issue,  the  full  edition,  is  con- 
fiscated by  a  local  postmaster  upon  orders  from  the  censor  at  Washing- 
ton. After  this  suppression,  the  publisher  is  notified  of  it,  but  informa- 
tion as  to  the  specific  fact  upon  which  the  arbitrary  action  was  based  is 
withheld.  He  is  told  he  has  violated  a  particular  postal  law,  but  he  is 
not  told  how  he  has  done  it.  Nor  does  he  get  a  hearing  even  on  the 
vague  general  charge  of  which  he  is  advised.  The  action  is  as  arbitrary 
as  such  actions  are  in  Russia.  In  Russia,  indeed,  the  censor  is  more 
considerate.  He  lampblacks  objectionable  articles  and  circulates  the 
rest  of  the  paper;  but  our  censor  suppresses  the  whole  edition,  the 
"good"  along  vrith  the  "bad."  And  after  the  edition  has  been  sup- 
pressed, another  paper,  interested  in  sounding  an  alarm  if  freedom  of 
the  press  has  been  bureaucratically  assailed,  is  trifled  with  by  the  cen- 
sors for  months,  in  its  eflForts  to  discover  the  specific  offense  for  which 
the  suppressed  paper  was  suppressed,  only  to  learn  finally  that  it  was 
for  publishing  two  articles,  only  the  titles  of  which  are  given,  and  in 
which,  however  offensive  they  may  be  to  good  taste,  even  a  prude  could 
hardly  find  material  for  specifications  on  a  charge  of  immorality. 

A  censorship  which  can  maintain  this  attitude  toward  freedom  of  the 
press  respecting  one  subject  of  discussion,  will  have  little  diflSculty  in 
speedily  advancing  its  meddlesome  jurisdiction  to  other  subjects. 

VI. 

The  real  issue  here,  let  us  repeat — and  it  will  bear  repetition  again 
and  again — is  not  the  legal  offensiveness  of  the  particular  articles  noted 
above.  That  issue  is  important  only  for  its  bearing  upon  the  point  of 
the  good  faith  of  the  censor.  The  real  issue  is  the  wisdom  of  allowing 
any  official  to  deny  mailing  facilities  to  anything  whatever  which  is 
otherwise  mailable,  merely  upon  his  own  judgment,  as  a  censor,  of  the 
morality  of  the  intelHgence  it  conveys  or  the  opinions  it  expresses. 

Granted  that  some  publications  ought  to  be  excluded,  the  power  of 
discrimination  cannot  safely  be  entrusted  to  an  administrative  official. 
A  bureau  of  administration  with  authority  to  exclude  matter  from  the 
mails  with  reference  to  the  intelligence  or  the  opinions  it  conveys,  will 
inevitably  grow  into  a  bureau  of  dangerous  censorship. 

For  offenses  against  the  purity  of  the  mails  the  only  safe  remedy  is 
the  one  that  is  applied  to  purity  in  every  other  connection — to  the  legiti- 
mate method  which  has  been  sanctioned  and  approved  by  long  usage 
in  EngUsh-speaking  countries;    and  this  is  to  punish  offenders  after 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  159 

they,  having  had  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  upon  specific  charges, 
have  been  convicted  by  a  jury  of  their  fellow-citizens. 

If  opinions  in  this  country  are  to  stand  or  fall  upon  reason  and  free 
discussion,  the  present  postal  censorship  must  be  abolished.  So  long 
as  publication  through  the  mails  can  be  denied  arbitrarily  by  an  admin- 
istrative bureau  of  the  government,  the  discussion  of  conflicting  opinions 
is  hampered. 

Even  the  sentiment  of  fair  play,  entirely  apart  from  all  considerations 
of  a  free  press,  demands  the  abolition  of  this  censorship.  So  long  as  an 
administrative  officer  can  withdraw  mailing  rights  from  a  publication 
for  any  offense  whatever,  without  an  opportunity  for  the  publisher  to 
be  heard  in  his  own  defense  before  an  impartial  tribunal,  fair  play  is 
impossible.  Though  we  deny  maihng  rights  to  indecent  publications, 
fair  play  demands  that  the  person  accused  of  the  offense,  and  whose 
personal  and  property  rights  are  involved  in  the  accusation,  shall  have 
the  opportunity  he  is  guaranteed  in  all  other  cases  to  convince  his  fellow- 
citizens  that  his  pubUcation  is  not  indecent.  It  is  his  right  to  be  ju- 
dicially heard  in  his  own  defense. 

Instances  Uke  that  of  the  suppression  of  Lucifer  by  postal  censorship 
point  so  directly  and  unmistakably  to  great  injustice  and  public  danger 
that  any  fair-minded  man  may  see  it  and  every  patriotic  man  ought  to 
resent  it.  No  matter  what  one's  opinion  of  any  paper  and  its  teachings 
may  be,  there  should  be  but  one  opinion  of  a  postal  organization  which 
permits  in  any  case  what  was  done  in  that  case,  and  this  should  be  an 
opinion  of  unqualified  condenmation. 

The  confiscation  by  postal  clerks,  of  any  pubUcation,  for  any  cause 
without  specific  charges,  without  opportunity  to  the  pubUsher  to  be  heard, 
without  the  verdict  of  a  jury,  without  appeal,  without  any  of  the  ordinary 
safeguards  of  personal  rights  and  private  property,  and  consequently 
without  any  assurance  of  guilt,  is  an  omnious  fact.  No  matter  how 
objectionable  or  even  dangerous  a  paper's  teachings  may  seem  to  the 
censors,  no  matter  how  offensive  its  language  in  their  estimation,  so 
palpable  an  invasion  of  the  commonest  rights  of  citizenship  is  a  direct 
menace  to  the  independent  press  of  the  country.  Any  law  that  author- 
izes it  should  be  swept  from  the  statute-books. 

The  only  difference  between  such  a  pojver  and  that  of  Russian  cen- 
sorship is  a  difference  neither  in  kind  nor  degree.  It  is  a  difference 
only  in  scope  of  execution.     And  scope  of  execution  widens  with  use. 

The  issue  before  us  turns  not  upon  the  propriety  of  excluding  inde- 
cent pubUcations  from  the  mails,  but  upon  the  wisdom  and  justice  of 
allowing  administrative  officers  to  hamper  freedom  of  the  press  and 
confiscate  property  rights,  upon  their  own  opinion  of  what  constitutes 
indecency,  and  without  an  opportunity  for  the  alleged  offender  to  be 
heard  in  his  defense.     Under  the  postal  censorship  publications  are 


160  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

denied  mailing  rights,  not  because  they  are  offensive  to  decency,  but  be- 
cause the  censor,  from  whom  there  is  no  appeal,  chooses  to  think  them 
so.     Here  is  the  seed  of  a  mighty  tree  of  absolutism. 


[Editorial  Note — Mr.  Post  closes  another  long  editorial,  quoting  his 
correspondence  with  the  Postoffice  Department,  by  using  these  words :] 

A  reduction  of  this  correspondence  also  to  questions  and  answers 
produces  the  following  rather  remarkable  result : 

Question.  "  Does  the  Department  exclude  the  issue  of  the  paper  in 
question  because  it  'names  and  tells  where  to  obtain  any  unmailable 
book  or  books  ? ' " 

Answer.  "It  is  not  practicable  for  the  Department  to  attempt  to 
point  out  all  the  offensive  passages  upon  which  the  exclusion  of  the  issue 
from  the  mails  is  based." 

Question.  "Is  it  because  of  the  quotation  from  Bernard  Shaw's 
*'  Man  and  Superman  ?  " 

Answer.  "  It  is  not  practicable  for  the  department  to  attempt  to  point 
out  all  the  offensive  passages  upon  which  the  exclusion  of  the  issue  from 
the  mails  is  based." 

Question.  "If  The  Public  were  to  reproduce  the  said  catalogue  of 
books,  or  the  said  quotation  from  Bernard  Shaw's  '  Man  and  Superman/ 
would  the  postmaster  at  Chicago  be  required  to  consider  this  decision 
as  a  precedent  and  accordingly  to  exclude  that  issue  of  The  Public  from 
the  mails  ?  " 

Answer.  "The  Department  cannot  undertake  'to  state  what  would 
or  would  not  be  unmailable  in  advance  of  the  matter  being  actually 
presented  for  transmission  in  the  mails.* " 

Now,  why  was  it  impracticable  for  the  Department  to  state  whether 
or  not  the  exclusion  of  Lucifer  was  because  it  printed  the  names  and 
places  for  procuring  certain  books  ?  The  Department  was  not  asked 
"to  point  out  all  offensive  passages." 

And  why  was  it  impracticable  for  the  Department  to  state  whether 
or  not  the  paper  in  question  was  excluded  because  of  its  quotation  from 
*'  Man  and  Superman  ?  "  To  do  this  it  was  not  necessary  "  to  point  out  all 
offensive  passages." 

Finally,  why  could  n't  the  Department  undertake  to  inform  us  whether 
the  postmaster  at  Chicago  would  be  required  to  consider  the  decision 
in  the  Lucifer  case  as  a  precedent  ?  What  is  the  meaning  of  refusals  by 
the  Department  to  state  in  advance  of  mailing  whether  matter  excluded 
from  the  mail  when  published  by  one  periodical  would  be  unmailable 
if  published  by  another  ?     This  last  question  almost  answers  itself. 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  161 

II. 

We  have  now  proved  our  assertions.  But  that  there  may  be  no 
reasonable  question  of  our  having  done  so,  let  us  summarize  the  asser- 
tions and  the  proof  in  support  of  them. 

First.  We  have  proved  by  the  foregoing  correspondence  that  any 
periodical  is  subject  to  exclusion  from  the  mails  as  a  purveyor  of  ob- 
scenity, upon  the  mere  arbitrary  order  of  administrative  post  office 
officials.  J 

Second.  We  have  proved,  also  by  the  foregoing  correspondence, 
that  exclusion  orders  are  made  by  the  Post  Office  Department  ostensibly 
in  accordance  with  its  own  rulings  as  to  what  constitutes  obscenity, 
and  that  these  rulings,  though  treated  as  precedents  by  postmasters, 
are  kept  profoundly  secret  by  the  Department. 

Third.  We  have  proved  by  reference  to  a  previous  article  on  this 
general  subject,  which  is  too  lengthy  to  be  reproduced  here, 
that  the  courts  hold  decisions  of  the  Postmaster  General  in  these  matters 
to  be  absolutely  beyond  the  power  of  the  judiciary  to  override  or  restrain, 
even  though  he  decide  without  evidence  and  in  manifest  bad  faith. 

Fourth.  We  have  proved  by  the  above  correspondence,  supple- 
mented now  by  the  best  testimony  possible,  in  view  of  the  necessity  the 
Department  imposes  upon  us  of  proving  the  negative  of  an  issue  on 
which  it  holds  the  affirmative  and  possesses  all  the  affirmative  evidence, 
if  there  be  any,  that  in  practice  the  Department  does  exclude  from  the 
mails  for  obscenity  periodicals  which  in  fact  are  not  obscene.  The  cor- 
respondence proves  the  first  part  of  this  contention,  namely,  that  the 
Department  excludes  periodicals  alleged  to  contain  obscene  articles. 
As  to  the  second  and  essential  part  of  the  contention,  namely,  that  the 
articles  are  in  fact  not  obscene,  the  Department  refuses  to  indicate  the 
decisive  facts,  which  are  within  its  own  control  and  in  the  nature  of 
things  cannot  be  known  to  outsiders.  The  several  articles  indicated 
above  by  the  Chicago  postmaster  as  cause  for  exclusion  are  clearly  not 
obscene.  The  fact  that  the  Department  refuses  to  particularize  should 
raise  a  reasonable  presumption  that  there  is  nothing  which  it  can  par- 
ticularize. And  in  support  of  this  presumption  we  now  positively  tes- 
tify, after  reading  the  excluded  papers  through,  that  they  in  fact  contain 
no  word,  phrase,  or  thought  which  can  with  any  show  of  reason  be  char- 
acterized as  obscene. 

Fifth.  It  is  not  necessary  to  prove  that  these  circumstances  afford 
dangerous  opportunities  for  corruption  in  the  Post  Office  Department. 
When  the  law  permits  postal  officials  to  exclude  from  the  mails  any  pe- 
riodical, arbitrarily  in  their  own  discretion,  with  no  appeal  to  the  courts, 
upon  the  bare  pretense  that  they  contain  obscenity  but  without  any 
requirement  that  the  alleged  obscenity  be  particularized  with  sufficient 
definiteness  to  permit  of  a  judgment  upon  the  good  faith  of  the  exclusion. 


162  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

and  when  the  Department  passes  upon  the  question  not  only  arbirtrarily 
but  in  secret,  the  opportunities  for  secret  corruption  are  so  enormous 
that  only  the  corruptible  official  in  the  place  for  corrupting  possibilities 
is  necessary  to  produce  a  regime  of  corruption. 

We  submit,  then,  that  we  have  established  all  that  in  this  article  we 
set  out  to  prove.  Any  periodical  may  be  peremptorily  excluded  from 
the  mails  as  a  purveyor  of  obscenity  though  it  contain  nothing  obscene, 
and  this  upon  the  mere  order  of  administrative  postal  officials;  exclusion 
orders  are  made  in  alleged  accordance  with  secret  precedents,  the  lim- 
itations of  which  are  held  from  the  pubUshers  seeking  to  adapt  their 
editorial  rights  to  postal  rulings;  the  courts  declare  themselves  power- 
less to  interfere,  even  though  exclusions  be  made  without  evidence  and 
in  manifest  bad  faith;  the  Post  Office  Department  does  in  fact  in  this 
arbitrary  manner  exclude  from  the  mails  as  obscene,  periodicals  which 
in  fact  are  not  obscene.  Therefore,  as  the  law  now  stands,  it  affords  a 
degree  of  opportunity  for  corrupt  discrimination  and  oppression  which 
it  is  unsafe  to  repose  in  any  official  and  which  ought  to  be  guarded 
against  by  Congress. 

III. 

The  remedy  for  this  fungus  growth  upon  the  postal  service,  a  service 
originally  intended  only  for  a  national  convenience  but  now  turned  into 
a  national  poUce  system  which  operates  through  irresponsible  "admin- 
istrative process"  and  from  a  "star  chamber"  tribunal,  Ues  with  Con- 
gress. 

Shall  the  right  to  mail  service  in  the  United  States,  now  become  a 
necessity  of  the  common  life,  depend  upon  the  caprice,  the  bigotry,  or 
the  corruptibility  of  one  man  at  the  head  of  a  Washington  department 
or  his  subordinate  at  the  head  of  a  bureau  ? 

That  question  is  distinctly  raised. 

The  courts  have  answered.  Yes.     What  has  Congress  to  say  ? 


ROBERT  BUCHANAN:  Fnm  "On  Descending  into  Hell" 

I  HAVE  never  held  (and  I  do  not  hold  now)  the  opinion  that  drainage 
is  a  fit  subject  for  Art,  that  men  grow  any  better  by  the  contempla- 
tion of  what  is  bestial  and  unpleasant;  indeed,  I  have  always  been 
Puritan  enough  to  think  pornography  a  nuisance.  It  is  one  thing, 
however,  to  dislike  the  obtrusion  of  things  unsavoury  and  abominable, 
and[  quite  another  to  regard  any  allusion  to  them  as  positively  criminal. 
A  description  even  of  pigsties,  moreover,  may  sometimes  be  made 
tolerable  by  the  cunning  of  a  great  artist,  and  M.  Zola,  though  a  dullard 
au  fond,  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  regards  pigsties  as  the  only  fore- 
ground for  his  lurid  moral  landscapes,  appears  to  be  so  much  better 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  163 

and  nobler  than  myself,  in  so  much  as  he  loves  Truth  more  and  fears 
consequences  less,  that  I  have  again  and  again  taken  off  my  hat  to  him 
in  open  day.  His  zeal  may  be  mistaken,  but  it  is  self-evident;  his 
information  may  be  horrible,  but  it  is  certainly  given  in  all  good  faith; 
and  an  honest  man  being  the  rarest  of  phenomena  in  all  literature, 
this  man  has  my  sympathy, — though  my  instinct  is  to  get  as  far  away 
from  him  as  possible,  .  .  . 

Little  as  I  sympathize  with  his  views  of  life,  greatly  as  I  loathe  his 
pictures  of  human  vice  and  depravity,  I  have  learned  much  from  him, 
and  others  may  learn  much;  and  had  I  been  unable  to  read  French, 
these  translations  would  have  been  to  me  an  intellectual  help  and 
boon.  I  like  to  have  the  Devil's  case  thoroughly  stated,  because  I 
know  it  refutes  itself.  As  an  artist,  Zola  is  unjustifiable;  as  a  moralist, 
he  is  answerable;  but  as  a  free  man,  a  man  of  letters,  he  can  decline  to 
accept  the  fiat  of  a  criminal  tribunal.  ...  It  seems  to  me  that  it  would 
be  as  rational  to  consult  the  first  area-haunting  policeman  on  the  ethical 
quality  of  literature,  as  to  accept  the  evidence  of  a  censor  who  is  either 
a  mischief-maker  or  an  ignoramus.  .  .  . 

Does  any  sane  man  imagine  that  it  is  really  corrupt  books  that  destroy 
society,  and  that  any  suppression  of  literature  will  make  society  any 
better?  No;  these  books,  where  they  are  corrupt,  merely  represent 
corruption  already  existing — are  merely  signs  and  sjTnbols  of  social 
disease.  The  argument  that  they  bring  "blushes  to  the  cheek  of  a 
young  person"  is  irrelevant.  They  are  not  written  for  the  young 
person;  and  if  they  are,  the  young  person  will  get  at  them,  now  and 
forever,  in  spite  of  the  policeman.  Criticize  them,  attack  them,  point 
out  their  deformities  and  absurdities  as  much  as  you  please  and  as 
much  as  I  myself  have  done;  but  do  not  imagine  that  you  will  purify 
the  air  by  suppressing  literature,  or  that  you  can  make  people  virtuous 
by  penal  clauses  and  Acts  of  Parliament.  .  .  . 

No;  these  things  must  be  veiled,  the  argument  on  the  other  side 
must  not  be  stated,  the  descent  into  Hell  must  never  be  alluded  to, 
except  by  those  who  are  supposed  to  keep  the  Keys.  [So  we  are  told.] 
Surely  there  is  no  truth  which  Science  or  Art  can  bring  to  light,  which 
Infallibility  should  fear.^  Surely  Satan  should  be  permitted  to  argue 
out  his  case?  "No,"  says  the  Vigilance  Committee  and  the  Lord 
Chamberlain,  "No,  a  thousand  times;  since  sewerage  is  a  Mystery, 
and  children  and  young  persons  might  overhear  the  argument  and  be 
contaminated — that  is  to  say,  converted."  A  foolish  fear!  A  feeble 
superstition!  The  argument  wiU  out  somehow,  in  spite  of  all  Inquisi- 
tions. Human  nature  will  not  suffer  its  own  salvation  or  damnation 
to  be  discussed  e»  camera.     The  matter  must  be  fought  in  open  day.  .  .  . 

There  are  zealots  who  would  burn  the  works  of  Shakespeare,  as  there 
were  zealots  who  cursed  and  anathematized  the  works  of  Burns.     To  a 


104  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

certain  order  of  intelligence,  all  literature  is  profane,  dangerous,  inex- 
pedient. Large  portions  of  the  community  believe  any  stage  play 
whatsoever  is  an  abomination;  large  portions  warn  us  that  the  read- 
ing of  any  work  of  fiction  or  fairy  tale  is  sinful  and  pernicious.  .  .  . 

Just  as  certainly  as  the  light  which  leads  astray  may  (as  Burns  pro- 
tested) be  "light  from  Heaven,"  so  may  the  light  which  guides  and  saves 
be  light  from  Hell.  To  drape  one-half  of  the  human  figure  is  not  to 
prove  the  whole  structure  to  be  celestial;  to  ignore  the  existence  of 
Evil  is  not  to  ensure  the  triumph  of  Good.  The  literature  of  Hell  is 
God's  literature  too.  .  .  . 

The  fact  that,  ashamed  of  our  nakedness,  we  have  made  ourselves 
an  apron,  does  not  justify  us  in  covering  all  our  flesh  with  old-fashioned 
steel  armor.  The  knowledge  we  have  secured,  at  the  cost  of  our  inno- 
cence, is  not  to  be  ignored;  the  freedom  we  have  gained,  at  the  price 
of  our  moral  peace,  is  not  to  be  abandoned.  In  other  words,  we  can- 
not save  ourselves  now  by  ignorance,  nor  can  we  be  saved  by  provi- 
dential suppression.  Every  man  who  would  be  strong  for  the  world's 
fight  must  visit  Hell,  and  become  acquainted  with  its  literature;  when 
he  is  certain  to  discover,  if  my  own  experience  is  any  guide,  that  the 
angels  there  are  real,  though  fallen.  .  .  . 

The  point  for  which  I  have  always  contended  is  that  both  cynical 
pessimism  and  coarse  realism  are  alike  infinitely  absurd.  A  thor- 
oughly unclean  book  is  almost  invariably  a  thoroughly  foolish  one. 
Zola,  for  example,  is,  at  his  coarsest,  merely  a  subject  for  laughter; 
the  dirt  sticks  to  him  who  writes,  not  to  him  who  reads,  and  makes  the 
writer  look  ridiculous.  The  sense  of  the  absurd,  in  fact,  is  the  granum 
salis  which  keeps  literature  wholesome.  Even  Justine  becomes  innoc- 
uous, even  Petronius  becomes  harmless,  when  disinfected.  Yet  when 
I  look  at  Rabelais  in  his  easy  chair,  I  need  no  grain  of  salt,  for  I  am 
thinking  only  of  the  broad  humanity  of  the  man.  Even  Sterne's  dirty 
snigger  is  forgotten  in  his  quaint  humanities.  Nihil  humani  a  me 
alienum  puto;  nothing  in  literary  humanities  injures  me  one  hair. 
My  eyes  are  yonder  on  Mount  Pisgah,  and  though  I  yearn  for  the 
region  of  stainless  snow,  I  know  my  way  lies  through  this  mud.  .  .  . 

For,  as  I  have  said.  Hell  is,  and  we  must  know  it,  and  to  know  it  is, 
in  the  end,  to  abominate  and  to  avoid  it.  We  are  not  celestial  beings, 
yet.  We  are  earthly  and  human  enough  to  fancy  that  the  diet  of  celes- 
tial beings  is  very  often  insipid.  We  want  the  records  of  human  sin 
and  pain.  We  crave  for  the  elemental  passions.  We  tire  even  of  plum 
pudding,  and  thirst  to  eat  husks  with  the  swine.  We  miss  the  tasty 
leaven,  in  super-celestial  food.  And  so,  when  we  are  sick  of  a  surfeit 
of  holiness,  we  turn  to  Farquhar  for  gay  rascality,  to  Swift  for  brute- 
banality,  to  Byron  for  lightsome  deviltry,  to  Goethe  for  intellectual 
concupiscence,  to  Heine  for  the  persiflage  which  scorns  all  sanctities 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  165 

and  laughs  at  all  the  gods,  and  to  Zola  for  gruesome  testimony  against 
sunlight  and  human  nature.  When  this  k  done,  after  we  have  seen 
the  Satyr  romp  and  heard  the  hiccup  of  Silenus,  after  we  have  seen 
Rabelais  charging  the  monks  on  his  ass  Panurge,  and  left  Whitman 
loafing  naked  on  the  sea  shore,  do  we  turn  again  with  less  appetite, 
with  less  eager  insight,  towards  the  shining  documents  of  Heaven  ?  ,  .  . 

Of  all  the  great  writers  who  have  been  canonized  by  Humanity, 
there  is  scarcely  one  who,  under  the  proposed  Inquisition  of  Messrs. 
Shallow  and  Dogberry,  would  not  have  been  "  run  in,"  pilloried,  fined, 
or  imprisoned.  The  author  of  Pericles  would  do  his  six  months  as  a 
first-class  misdemeanant,  in  company  with  the  author  of  CEdipus  and 
other  foreigners  of  reputation.  Sappho,  for  one  little  set  of  verses, 
would  be  tied  to  the  cart's-tail,  in  company  with  Nanon  and  Mrs. 
Behn.  In  one  long  chain,  the  dramatists  of  the  Elizabethan  age  would 
go  to  the  moral  galleys,  followed  by  the  dirtier  dramatists  of  the  Restor- 
ation. Fielding  and  Smollett  would  find  no  mercy,  Richardson  him- 
self would  escape  only  with  a  warning  not  to  offend  any  more.  To 
come  down  to  contemporaries,  I  think  Mr.  Browning  might  be  ad- 
judged an  offender  against  the  law  of  modest  reticence,  and  Mr.  George 
Meredith  a  revolutionary  in  the  region  of  sensuous  passion.  Not  all 
his  odes  to  infancy,  not  all  his  apotheosis  of  the  coral  and  the  lollipop, 
would  save  Mr.  Swinburne.  But  the  authors  of  the  Heir  of  Redcliffe 
and  A  Knight  Errant  would  rise  up  to  the  stainless  shrines  of  litera- 
ture, and  Mr.  Slippery  Sweetsong  might  become  the  laureate  of  the  new 
age  of  Moral  Drapery  and  popular  Mauvaise  Honte.  How  good  then 
would  Humanity  become,  bereft  of  Shakespeare's  feudal  glory,  denied 
even  a  glimpse  of  frisky  blue  stockings  under  the  ballet  skirts  of  Ouida! 
Morality  would  be  saved,  possibly.  All  would  be  innocence,  a  moral 
constabulary,  and  good  society.  We  should  have  choked  up  with  tracts 
and  pretty  poems  and  proper  novelettes  the  mouth  of  a  sleeping  vol- 
cano; but  when  .Etna,  or  Sheol,  or  Hell,  had  its  periodical  eruption, 
what  would  happen  then  ?  .  .  . 

The  main  contention  of  suppress ionist  philosophers  is  that  if  the 
majority  can  crush  out  vice  by  law,  it  is  vicious  not  to  do  it,  even  if  a 
little  truth  has  to  be  sacrificed  too.  But  how  shall  we  decide  what  is 
vicious?  Shall  not  the  history  of  persecution  warn  us  to  be  careful 
how  we  judge  ?  And  in  so  far  as  books  are  concerned,  is  not  the  record 
of  every  generation  filled  with  the  names  of  books  labelled  vicious  by 
the  contemporary  majority,  and  afterwards  pronounced  soul-helping 
by  the  verdict  of  posterity  ?  The  suppressed  books  form  in  themselves 
a  Bible  of  Humanity.  If  it  were  only  for  the  sake  of  one  or  two  little 
chapters,  say  the  EpLstle  of  Shelley  to  the  Muggletonians  or  the  Song 
of  Songs  (not  of  Solomon,  but  of  Heine)  I  should  regard  the  Bible  of 
Humanity  with  devout  affection.  .  .  . 


166  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Personally,  I  claim  the  right  of  free  deliverance,  free  speech,  free 
thought,  and  what  I  claim  for  myself  I  claim  for  every  human  being. 
I  claim  the  right  to  attack  and  to  defend.  I  claim  the  right  to  justify 
the  Devil,  if  I  want  to.  I  can  be  suppressed  by  wiser  argument,  by 
deeper  insight,  by  greater  knowledge,  but  not  by  the  magistrate,  civil 
or  literary.  I  would  stand  even  by  Judas  Iscariot  in  the  dock,  if  his 
Judge  denied  him  a  free  hearing,  a  fair  trial.  The  Truth,  if  she  is 
great  as  we  assume  her  to  be,  must  prevail.  The  evidence  of  the  Devil 
is  necessary  to  secure  the  triumph  of  God;  if  it  were  otherwise,  the 
Devil,  not  his  Judge,  would  be  Omnipotent.  ... 

In  this  country,  I  believe,  only  two  classes  are  specially  pornographic: 
those  who  never  read  at  all,  because  they  cannot  or  will  not,  and  those 
who  are  sufficiently  wealthy  to  buy  and  read  editions  de  luxe.  Mr. 
Vizetelly's  publications  cannot  affect  the  former  classes,  and  their 
existence  is  a  matter  of  indifference  to  the  latter,  who  finger  their  Casa- 
nova at  leisure,  and  pay  readily  for  costly  works  like  Burton's  transla- 
tion of  the  Arabian  Nights.  The  point  of  the  persecution,  therefore, 
appears  to  be  that  Mr.  Vizetelly's  books  are  sufficiently  attractive 
and  cheap  to  reach  those  classes  who  are  pornographic  in  neither  their 
habits  nor  their  tastes:  young  clerks,  frisky  milliners,  et  hoc  genus 
omne.  Now  these  people  are  precisely  those  who  are  robust  and  healthy- 
minded  enough,  familiar  with  the  world  enough,  to  discriminate  for 
themselves.  Whatever  they  choose  to  read  will  make  them  neither 
better  nor  worse.  The  milliner  will  frisk  without  the  aid  of  a  Zola, 
and  the  young  clerk  will  follow  the  milliner,  even  within  the  protective 
shadow  of  a  Young  Men's  Christian  Association.  Wholesale  corrup- 
tion never  yet  came  from  corrupt  literature  which  is  the  effect,  not  the 
cause,  of  social  libertinage.  Do  we  find  morality  so  plentiful  amongst 
the  godly  farmers  and  drovers  of  Annandale,  or  among  the  "unco* 
gude"  of  Ayshire  or  Dumfrieshire — thumbers  of  the  Bible,  sheep  of 
the  Kirk?  Stands  Scotland  anywhere  but  where  it  did,  though  it  has 
not  yet  acquired  an  esthetic  taste  for  the  Abominable,  but  merely  real- 
izes occasionally  the  primitive  instincts  of  La  Terre  ?  Dwells  perfect 
purity  in  Brittany  and  in  Normandy,  despite  the  fact  that  Zola  there 
is  an  unknown  quantity,  and  Paris  itself  a  thing  of  dream  ?  Bestialism, 
animalism,  sensualism,  realism,  call  it  by  what  name  you  will,  is  ante- 
cedent to  and  triumphant  over  all  books  whatsoever.  Books  may 
reflect  it,  that  is  all;  and  I  fail  to  see  why  they  should  not,  since  it  exists. 
I  like  my  Burns  and  like  my  Byron,  though  neither  was  a  virtuous  or 
even  a  "decent  "  person.  My  Juvenal,  my  Lucretius,  my  Catullus, 
and  even  my  porous  porcorum  Petronius,  are  well  read.  My  Decam- 
eron, with  all  its  incidence  of  amativeness,  is  a  breeding  nest  of  poets. 
Age  cannot  wither,  nor  custom  stale.  La  Fontaine's  infinite  variety. 
But  I  take  such  books  as  these,  as  I  take  all  such  mental  food  cum. 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  167 

grano  salis,  a  pinch  of  which  keeps  each  from  corruption.  Even  the 
fly-blown  Gautier  looks  well,  cold  and  inedible,  on  a  sideboard,  gar- 
nished with  Style's  fresh  parsley.  But  I  have  never  found  that  what 
my  teeth  nibble  at  has  any  power  to  pollute  my  immortal  part.  I 
must  stand  on  the  earth  with  Montaigne  and  Rabelais,  but  does  that 
prevent  me  from  flying  heavenward  with  Jean  Paul,  or  walking  the 
mountain-tops  with  the  Shepherd  of  Rydal  ?  Inspection  of  the  dung- 
heaps  and  slaughter-houses  with  Johnathan  Swift  and  Zola  only  makes 
me  more  anxious  to  get  away  with  Rousseau,  to  the  peaceful  height 
where  the  Savoyard  Vicar  prays.  By  Evil  only,  shall  ye  distinguish 
Grood,  says  the  Master;  Yea,  and  by  the  husks  shall  ye  know  the  grain. 
The  man  who  says  that  a  Book  has  power  to  pollute  his  Soul  ranks 
his  Soul  below  a  Book.    I  rank  mine  infinitely  higher. 


B.  O.  FLOWER:  From  Editorials  in  "The  Arena"  November,  1906. 

The  National  Purity  Federation  at  its  recent  meeting  in  Chicago 
evinced  a  degree  of  wisdom  in  relation  to  the  great  question  of  sex 
morality  that  has  seldom  if  ever  before  been  manifested  in  similar 
congresses,  in  the  broad  and  fundamental  manner  in  which  it  consid- 
ered the  question.  Herefotore  usually  the  tendency  has  been  to  look 
on  the  question  of  morality  in  a  superficial  and  narrow  way,  but  in  the 
recent  convention  the  members  welcomed  broad,  judicial  and  funda- 
mental consideration  of  the  problem,  which  indicates  that  the  old 
ostrich-like  policy,  which  sought  to  stifle  anything  like  healthy  and 
fearless  consideration  of  grave  questions  absolutely  essential  to  sound 
morality,  is  to  give  place  to  a  mental  attitude  in  line  with  the  modern 
enlightened  and  scientific  spirit  of  our  time. 

Perhaps  the  most  notable  paper  delivered  at  the  meeting  was  read 
by  Mr.  Theodore  Schroeder,  one  of  the  associate  editors  of  The  Arena. 

At  our  request  a  correspondent  in  attendance  has  furnished  us  an 
excellent  news-note  dealing  with  the  significance  of  this  important 
gathering,  from  which  we  quote  the  following: 

"An  astonishing  thing  happened  in  Chicago  at  the  recent  meeting 
of  the  National  Purity  Federation.  Mr.  Theodore  Schroeder,  the 
attorney  of  the  Free-Speech  League  of  New  York,  was  allowed  to  address 
that  Conference  on  the  need  for  more  liberty  of  the  press  in  the  discus- 
sion of  sex  problems  as  a  condition  of  moral  progress. 

"  Mr.  Anthony  Comstock,  who  is  always  conspicuous  on  such  occa- 
sions, was  announced  to  reply  but  failed  to  appear.  The  still  more 
remarkable  thing  was  that  this  organization,  which  in  the  popular 
mind  stands  for  organized  and  legalized  prudery,  did  unanimously 
adopt  a  resolution  almost  as  broad  as  Mr.  Schroeder's  contention. 


168  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

"In  his  argument  he  reminded  us  that:  'Only  upon  the  subject  of 
sex  do  we  by  statute  declare  that  artificial  fear  is  a  safer  guide  than 
intelligent  self-reliance,  that  purity  can  thrive  only  in  concealment 
and  ignorance,  and  that  to  know  all  of  one's  self  is  dangerous  and  im- 
moral.' He  made  an  unanswerable  argument  for  the  right  of  every 
individual  to  know  for  himself  what  is  nature's  moral  law  of  sex,  and 
to  have  access  to  all  the  evidence  which  anyone  might  be  willing  to 
submit,  if  permitted. 

"Then  he  went  on  to  show  how  under  our  laws  against  'obscene' 
literature  that  right  to  know  has  been  destroyed.  We  thought  that 
the  liberty  of  the  press  guaranteed  by  our  Constitution  meant  the  right 
to  tell  the  truth  from  good  motives,  but  all  that  has  disappeared  by 
the  unauthorized  judicial  amendment  of  our  charter  of  liberties.  Upon 
the  subject  of  sex,  truth  and  good  motive  for  a  publication  are  no  longer 
a  defense  when  the  publisher  is  arrested  as  a  disseminator  of  obscenity. 

"Under  the  scientific  absurdities  which  courts  pronounce  as  the 
'tests  of  obscenity,'  nothing  can  escape  judicial  condemnation.  In  a 
scientific  paper  before  the  last  International  Medical  Congress,  Mr. 
Schroeder  showed  that  if  the  judicial  tests  of  obscenity  were  applied 
to  '  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin '  it  must  be  adjudged  a  criminally  '  lewd  book. ' 

"Before  the  Purity  Federation  he  showed  that  once  by  necessary 
implication  and  twice  by  expressed  judgment  have  the  courts  declared 
our  Bible  to  be  criminally  obscene,  and  furthermore,  that  courts  and 
juries  of  irreligious  men,  relying  wholly  upon  precedents  already  estab- 
lished, might  destroy  every  Bible  in  the  land,  as  well  as  most  of  our 
classical  literature.  The  test  of  obscenity  prescribed  by  our  courts 
was  applied  to  the  ten  commandments,  and  it  was  shown  that  an  im- 
partial enforcement  of  the  law  would  suppress  them  as  criminally 
obscene. 

"  This  extraordinary  statute  makes  no  exception  for  scientific  medical 
books,  even  when  circulated  among  professional  men.  By  dictum 
only,  have  the  courts  so  amended  the  law  that  these  books  thus  circu- 
lated are  tolerated  in  spite  of  the  statute,  and  not  as  a  matter  of  right 
under  it.  An  exact  enforcement  of  the  letter  of  our  statutes  under 
the  present  judicial  tests  of  obscenity  would  extirpate  all  the  medical 
literature  upon  the  subject  of  sex. 

"Many  suppressed  books  were  described.  They  came  from  physi- 
cians of  the  highest  standing  in  their  profession,  and  from  the  most 
conventional  and  conservative  moralists.  Nearly  all  of  the  criminal 
books  mentioned  in  Mr.  Schroeder 's  argument  had  the  endorsement 
of  some  clergymen  or  religious  leaders.  Of  course  many  controversial 
books  advocating  unconventional  ideas  have  also  been  suppressed. 

"On  the  day  following  this  paper,  the  Purity  Federation  unani- 
mously adopted  a  resolution  which,  to  the  outsider  at  least,  would  seem 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  169 

to  mark  a  new  epoch  among  purity  workers.  The  following  is  a  salient 
paragraph: 

"'Resolved,  that  the  President  be  empowered  to  appoint  a  permanent 
committee  of  seven,  of  whom  he  shall  be  one,  who  shall  seek  to  secure 
such  changes  in  the  judicial  tests  of  obscenity  as  will  make  the  law  so 
certain  that  by  reading  it  anyone  may  know  what  constitutes  its  viola- 
tion and  to  secure  such  an  interpretation  of  the  law  as  will  make  impos- 
sible the  suppression  of  any  scientific  and  educational  purity  literature.' 

"Another  evidence  of  very  great  progress  was  the  general  sentiment 
of  these  Purity  delegates  in  favor  of  sexual  instruction  in  our  schoob. 

"  The  New  York  Sun,  on  October  13th,  closed  an  editorial  upon  these 
incidents  of  the  Purity  conference  with  these  pointed  words: 

"The  truth  is  that  a  new  school  of  Purity  has  sprung  up  in  the  world, 
and  for  the  present  Mr.  Comstock  must  be  content  to  pass  as  an  old 
fogy,  out  of  date,  mid -Victorian,  unfashionable,  or  whatever  the  stronger 
party  chooses.  The  new  school  is  for  discovering  corruption;  his 
school  was  ever  for  concealing  it.  He  conceived  credulity  to  be  a  more 
peaceful  state  of  mind  than  curiosity  and  was  always  for  hiding  any- 
thing that  might  possibly  offend  even  our  dramatic  critics.  His  oppo- 
nents might  be  generous  enough  to  credit  him  with  a  laudable  ambition 
— the  honest  desire  to  raise  every  one  to  what  we  have  been  told  is  the 
very  height  of  felicity,  'the  possession  of  being  well  deceived,  the 
serene  and  peaceful  state  of  being  a  fool  among  knaves/  *' — N.Y.  Sun, 
Oct.  13,  1907. 


An  event  perhaps  even  quite  as  significant  as  that  which  marked  the 
National  Purity  Federation's  meeting,  was  the  recalling  of  the  invita- 
tion extended  to  Anthony  Comstock  by  the  Pennsylvania  Mothers' 
Congress.  The  press  dispatches  published  in  the  Boston  dailies  of 
October  ieoth  stated  that  "the  invitation  extended  to  Anthony  Com- 
stock, the  purity  mentor  of  New  York,  to  address  the  Pennsylvania 
Congress  of  Mothers,  at  Johnstown,  on  November  first  has  been  re- 
called." One  of  the  prominent  members  is  quoted  as  saying:  "I 
myself  have  pictures  and  statuary  in  my  home  which  are  perfectly 
beautiful  and  which  I  know  Mr.  Comstock  would  destroy  it  he  could." 

It  would  seem  from  the  above  that  the  more  thoughtful  and  healthily 
moral  members  of  the  Mothers'  Association  have  no  sympathy  with 
prurient  imaginations  that  see  impurity  and  evil  in  things  that  to  a 
healthy  or  normal  mind  suggest  not  only  naught  that  is  low  or  debasing, 
but  that  which  Ls  beautiful,  pure  and  fine.  We  well  remember  when 
at  school,  one  of  the  boys  in  our  room  seemed  unable  to  see  anything 
that  did  not  suggest  something  low,  vile  or  sensual.  His  mind  seemed 
to  so  brood  over  vile  and  low  things  that  his  imagination  apparently 
became  so  saturated  with  sensual  concepts  that  all  things  took  on  an 


170  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

evil  cast,  just  as  one  looking  through  green  glass  beholds  the  green 
sheen  on  every  object  seen.  On  one  occasion,  when  this  lad  had  ob- 
truded one  of  his  coarse  and  suggestive  remarks  while  some  of  us  were 
enjoying  an  historical  painting  that  to  aU  save  the  youth  in  question 
was  free  from  any  suggestion  of  sensualism,  a  schoolmate  exclaimed, 
"  I  think  the  fragrance  of  a  rose  would  suggest  something  low  to  Will.' 

Now  it  may  not  be  the  case  that  Anthony  Comstock  has  searched  so 
long  for  that  which  is  sensual,  low  or  corrupt  that  his  mind  has  reached 
the  stage  of  the  person  who  looks  at  the  world  through  green  glass. 
It  may  be  possible  that  he  is  not  in  the  position  where  it  is  impossible 
for  him  to  look  at  anything  without  seeing  something  degrading  and 
immoral  in  it ;  but  many  of  his  acts  of  late  years  suggest  the  possibility 
of  this  state,  or  else  that  he  is  of  that  order  of  mind  that  so  fears  the 
power  of  evil  over  good  that  he  believes  that  ignorance  is  the  only  helmet 
for  virtue;  that  innocence  born  of  ignorance  is  a  better  safeguard  for 
our  young  men  and  women  from  the  multitudinous  pitfalls  of  civilized 
life  than  knowledge  imparted  by  high-minded  men  and  women  with 
a  view  to  making  the  young  morally  strong  and  healthy  through- knowl- 
edge coupled  with  appeals  to  the  reason  to  think  fundamentally,  sanely 
and  normally. 

There  was  a  time  in  the  far-away  past  when  minds  of  this  order, 
that  seemed  to  endow  evil,  and  especially  sensualism,  with  infinite 
potency,  so  distrusted  the  power  of  righteousness  and  virtue  over  their 
own  minds  that  they  fled  to  the  deserts  and  to  retreats,  that  their  eyes 
might  not  even  be  tempted  by  the  sight  of  women.  Now  for  such 
persons  it  may  be  that  the  retreat  or  the  desert  is  the  healthiest  place; 
but  certainly  men  who  so  exalt  the  potency  of  evil,  and  especially  of 
sensualism,  that  they  see  grossness  and  vileness  in  the  breathing  statues 
that  represent  some  of  the  noblest  creations  of  genius  of  the  ages,  should 
not  be  encouraged  to  pose  as  censors  of  morals,  as  they  would  inevitably 
teach  the  immature  and  unformed  imagination  of  youth  to  look  for 
things  evil  and  degrading  or  sensual  in  nature  and  art,  instead  of  seeing 
beauty,  nobility  and  purity  which  the  sane,  healthy,  artistic  and  in- 
formed mind  sees  in  the  master-creations  of  the  ages. 

To  us  it  seems  that  a  mind  so  keen  to  scent  out  corruption  and  immor- 
ality where  minds  like  that  of  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  would  see  only 
beauty,  and  so  indiscriminate  in  its  attacks  on  the  good  as  well  as  the 
evil  as  is  Mr.  Comstock,  is  liable  to  work  a  vast  amount  of  evil  to  the 
young  and  to  the  public  imagination  as  a  whole,  by  centering  the  atten- 
tion of  the  people  on  evil  rather  than  good,  making  them  look  for  that 
which  is  low,  vile  and  debasing  when  otherwise  they  would  see  none  of 
these  things. 

A  recent  issue  of  Life  contained  an  admirable  cartoon  which  hits  off 
what  many  people  believe  to  be  Mr.  Comstock's  mental  attitude.     This 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  171 

cartoon  represents  Mr.  Corns tock  as  an  angel  flying  to  the  gates  of 
Heaven,  but  St.  Peter  sternly  forbids  his  entrance,  saying,  "No,  An- 
thony, no;  we  may  have  things  here  you  would  object  to." 


THEODORE  SCHROEDER:  StaUmmtof  the  Contentum  Against  "Obscenity" 
Law,  in  Blue  Orass  Blade:  "Obscenity  and  Witchcraji"  etc. 

The  postal  laws  against  obscene  literature  are  unconstitutional  for 
the  following  reasons: 

1 — Congress  having  expressed  power  to  establish  post-offices  and 
post-roads,  it  also  has  the  implied  power  to  pass  all  laws  "necessary 
and  proper"  for  the  execution  of  the  power  to  establish  post-offices 
and  post-roads. 

It  is  admitted  that  Congress  has  the  implied  power  to  determine  the 
gross  physical  characteristics  of  that  which  shall  be  carried  or  excluded. 
It  too  has  been  decided  that  Congress  also  has  the  power  to  preclude 
the  use  of  the  mails  as  an  essential  element  in  the  commission  of  a 
crime  otherwise  committable  and  over  which  Congress  has  jurisdiction 
(such  as  a  fraud  and  gambling)  within  the  geographical  limits  of  its 
power. 

But  it  is  now  claimed  that  the  power  of  Congress  is  limited  to  the 
use  of  means  which  are  a  direct  mode  of  executing  the  power  to  estab- 
lish post-offices  and  post-roads  or  other  expressed  enumerated  powers, 
and  it  cannot,  under  the  pretense  of  regulating  the  mails,  accomplish 
objects  which  the  Constitution  does  not  commit  to  the  care  of  Congress. 
Such  an  unconstitutional  object  is  the  effort  of  Congress,  under  the 
pretext  of  regulating  the  maUs,  to  control  the  psycho-sexual  condition 
of  the  postal  patrons.  A  differential  test  of  mail  matter,  based  upon 
the  opinions  transmitted  through  the  mails,  of  the  psychologic  tendencies 
of  such  opinions  upon  the  addressee  of  the  mail,  or  a  differential  test 
based  upon  an  idea  which  is  not  actually  transmitted,  but  is  suggested  by 
one  that  is  transmitted,  bears  no  conceivable  relation  to  the  establish- 
ment of  post-offices  for  post  roads  for  the  transmission  of  physical 
logic  test  cannot  become  material  until  Congress  has  authority  for,  and 
does  establish,  a  system  for  telepathic  communication.  At  present. 
Congress  can  have  no  implied  power  to  make  such  regulations. 

II. — Our  Constitution  precludes  the  punishment  of  mere  psychological 
crimes.  The  creation  of  offenses  which  are  based  only  upon  ideas  such 
as  were  once  punished,  as  constructive  treason,  witchcraft,  and  her^y, 
either  religious  or  ethical,  and  all  kindred  psychologic  or  constructive 


172  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

crimes,  are  prohibited.  "The  doctrine  is  fundamental  in  English  and 
American  law,  that  there  can  be  no  constructive  offenses."  All  pun- 
ishable crime  must  be  based  upon  demonstrable  and  ascertained  or 
imminent  material  injury  to  some  actual  being.  The  present  postal 
law  against  "obscene"  literature  does  not  predicate  crime  upon  any 
actual  or  ascertainable  injury,  but  solely  upon  a  speculative  guess  as 
of  that  which  is  sent  through  the  mails.  Congress  has  no  power  to 
predicate  crime  upon  such  factors. 

III. — The  postal  law  against  obscene  literature  is  void  under  the 
constitutional  prohibition  against  abridgment  of  freedom  of  speech 
and  press  in  this,  that  it  is  the  artificial  legislative  destruction  of  equality,, 
or  creation  of  inequalities,  of  opportunity  for  the  dissemination  of 
ideas  of  conflicting  tendency.  Freedom  of  the  press  is  abridged  by 
the  state,  whenever  under  its  laws,  there  is  not  an  equality  of  freedom  in 
the  production  and  distribution  of  ideas,  by  means  of  the  printed  page. 

IV. — The  statute  furnishes  no  standard  or  test  by  which  to  differen- 
tiate what  book  is  obscene  from  that  which  is  not,  because  of  which 
fact,  the  definition  of  the  crime  is  uncertain.  Furthermore,  it  is  a 
demonstrable  fact  of  science  that  obscenity  and  indecency  are  not 
sense-perceived  qualities  of  a  book,  but  are  solely  and  exclusively  a 
condition  or  effect  in  the  reading  mind.  This  is  evidenced  in  the  result 
that  it  has  been  and  always  will  be  impossible  to  state  a  definition  or 
test  of  obscenity  in  terms  of  the  qualities  of  a  book,  or  such  a  one  that, 
solely  by  applying  the  test  to  any  given  book,  accuracy  and  uniformity 
of  result  must  follow,  no  matter  who  applies  the  test;  nor  such  that 
any  man  may  know  in  advance  of  a  trial  and  verdict,  solely  from  read- 
ing the  statute,  what  the  verdict  must  be  as  to  the  obscenity,  and  conse- 
quent criminality  of  every  given  book.  Neither  the  statute  nor  the 
judicial  tests  of  obscenity  or  indecency  furnish  any  certain  advance 
information  as  to  what  must  be  the  verdict  of  a  jury  upon  the  specula- 
tive problem  of  the  psychologic  effect  of  a  given  book,  upon  a  hypothet- 
ical reader.  Their  verdict  is,  therefore,  not  according  to  the  letter  of 
any  general  law,  but  according  to  their  whim,  caprice  and  prejudices, 
or  varying  personal  experiences  and  different  degrees  of  sexual-hyper- 
estheticism  and  varying  kind  and  quality  of  intelligence  upon  the  subject 
of  sexual  psychology.  In  consequence,  every  such  verdict  is  according 
to  a  test  of  obscenity  personal  to  the  court  or  jury  in  each  case  and 
binding  upon  no  other  court  or  jury  and  not  according  to  any  general 
law  or  uniform  rule.  One  of  the  reasons  underlying  this  uncertainty, 
is  the  fact  that  obscenity  is  not  a  quality  inherent  in  a  book  or  picture, 
but  solely  and  exclusively  a  contribution  of  the  reading  mind,  and 
hence  cannot  be  defined  in  terms  of  the  qualities  of  a  book  or  picture. 

V. — The  first  result  of  this  uncertainty  is  that  the  statute  of  Congress 
herein  involved,  creates  no  certain  or  general  rule  of  conduct  for  the 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  173 

guidance  of  citizens,  and  does  not  enable  them  to  know  in  advance  if 
their  proposed  act  is  in  violation  of  law,  and  therefore  every  indictment 
under  said  statute  is  "without  due  process  of  law  "  and  unconstitutional. 

VI. — The  second  result  of  this  uncertainty  of  the  statute  is  that  ever\' 
indictment  under  said  statute  is  always  according  to  an  ex  post  facto 
law  or  standard  of  judgment  specially  created  by  the  court  or  jury  for 
each  particular  case.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  no  power 
to  determine  guilt  of  crime  according  to  varying  personal  standards 
(like  the  opinion  of  a  jury  on  the  psychologic  tendency  of  a  book  upon 
a  hypothetical  reader),  and  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  cannot  be 
known  at  the  time  the  alleged  act  was  committed,  nor  before  the  rendi- 
tion of  a  verdict  thereon,  because  that  is  ex  post  facto  legislation.  Every 
conviction  secured  under  such  a  criterion,  whether  thus  enacted  by 
Congress  or  through  delegated  power  by  the  court  or  jury,  is  unconsti- 
tutional, because  under  an  ex  post  facto  law. 

VII. — A  third  phase  of  the  contention  may  be  thus  stated:  The 
statute  is  void  for  uncertainty  and  the  total  absence  therein  of  any 
complete  definition  of  the  crime  to  be  punished  or  the  standard  by 
which  the  existence  of  "obscenity,"  or  the  dividing  line  between  it  and 
its  opposite  is  to  be  determined.  This  nullification  results  from  an 
application  of  an  ancient  maxim :  "  Where  the  law  is  uncertain,  there 
is  no  law." 

VIII. — ^The  statute  is  void,  because  by  it  Congress  has,  in  effect, 
delegated  to  the  court  or  jury  or  both,  as  the  case  may  be,  not  merely 
whether  or  not  the  defendant  has  committed  the  acts  prohibited  by  the 
letter  of  the  statute  and  as  charged  in  the  indictment,  but  also  its  legis- 
lative power  to  declare  by  standards  of  judgment  not  made  certain  by 
the  statute  or  natural  science,  whether  or  not  such  disputed  acts 
shall  or  shall  not  constitute  a  crime  under  the  laws  of  the  land,  and 
Congress  has  not  the  power  to  delegate  to  courts  or  juries  its  legislative 
discretion  to  determine  what  shall  be  criminal. 


Has  it  ever  occurred  to  you  that  the  witchcraft  superstition  was  almost 
identical,  in  its  essence,  with  the  present  superstitious  belief  in  the  reality 
of  the  "obscene,"  as  a  thing  outside  the  mind  ?    Think  it  over. 

Fanatical  men  and  pious  judges,  otherwise  intelligent,  have  affirmed 
the  reality  of  both,  and,  on  the  assumption  of  their  inerrancy  in  this, 
have  assumed  to  punish  their  fellow-men.  It  is  computed  from  histori- 
cal records  that  9,000,000  persons  were  put  to  death  for  witchcraft  after 
1484.  The  opponents  of  witch-belief  were  denounced  just  as  the  dis- 
believers in  the  "obscene"  are  now  denounced.  Yet  witches  ceased  to 
be,  when  men  no  longer  believed  in  them.  Think  it  over  and  see  if  the 
"obscene"  will  not  also  disappear  when  men  cease  to  believe  in  it. 

In  1661,  the  learned  Sir  Mathew  Hale,  "a  person  than  whom  no  one 


174  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

was  more  backward  to  condemn  a  witch  without  full  evidence,"  use<l 
this  language:  "That  there  are  such  angels  [as  witches]  it  is  without 
question."  Then  he  made  a  convincing  argument  from  Holy  Writ,  and 
added :  "It  is  also  confirmed  to  us  by  daily  experience  of  the  power  and 
energy  of  these  evil  spirits  in  witches  and  by  them."  (See  Annals  of 
Witchcraft,  by  Drake,  preface,  page  xi.) 

A  century  later,  the  learned  Sir  William  Blackstone,  since  then  the 
mentor  of  every  English  and  American  lawyer  joined  with  the  witch- 
burners  in  bearing  testimony  to  the  existence  of  these  spook-humans, 
just  as  our  own  courts  to-day  join  with  the  obscenity-burners  to  aflSrm 
that  obscenity  is  in  a  book  and  not  in  the  reading  minds,  and  that,  there- 
fore, the  publisher  and  not  the  reader,  shall  go  to  jail  for  being  "obscene." 

Blackstone  said:  "To  deny  the  possibility,  nay,  actual  existence,  of 
witch-craft  and  sorcery  is  at  once  flatly  to  contradict  the  revealed  word 
of  God  in  various  passages  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and 
the  thing  itself  is  a  truth  to  which  every  nation  in  the  world  hath  in  its 
turn  borne  testimony,  either  by  example,  seemingly  well  tested,  or  by 
prohibitory  laws  which  at  least  suppose  the  possibility  of  commerce  with, 
evil  spirits."     (Blackstone 's  Commentaries,  page  59.     Edition  of  1850.) 

And  yet  when  men  ceased  to  believe  in  witches,  they  ceased  to  be,  and 
so  when  men  shall  cease  to  believe  in  the  "obscene"  they  will  also  cease 
to  find  that.  Obscenity  and  witches  exist  only  in  the  minds  and  emotions 
of  those  who  believe  in  them,  and,  neither  dogmatic  judicial  dictum  nor 
righteous  vituperation  can  ever  give  to  either  of  them  any  objective 
existence. 

In  the  "good  old  days,"  when  a  few,  wiser  than  the  rest,  doubted  the 
reality  of  witches,  if  not  themselves  killed  as  being  bewitched,  they  were 
cowed  into  silence  by  an  avalanche  of  vituperation  such  as  "infidel," 
"atheist,"  or  "emissary  of  Satan,"  "the  enemy  of  God,"  "the  anti-Christ," 
and  some  witch-finder  would  get  on  his  trail  to  discover  evidence  of  this 
heretic 's  compact  with  the  devil. 

How  this  is  duplicated  in  the  attitude  of  the  nasty-minded  portion  of 
the  public  toward  those  who  disbelieve  in  the  objectivity  of  "obscenity" ! 
Whether  obscenity  is  a  sense-perceived  quality  of  a  book,  or  resides  ex- 
clusively in  the  reading  mind,  is  a  question  of  science,  and,  as  such,  a 
legitimate  matter  of  debate.  Try  to  prove  its  non-existence  by  the  scien- 
tific method,  and  the  literary  scavengers,  instead  of  answering  your 
arguments,  by  showing  the  fallacy  of  its  logic  or  error  of  fact,  show  their 
want  of  culture,  just  as  did  the  witch-burners.  They  tell  you  that  you 
are  "either  an  ignoramus  or  so  ethereal  that  there  is  no  suitable  place 
on  earth  for  you,"  except  in  jail.  They  further  hurl  at  you  such  illumi- 
nating epithetic  arguments  as  "immoral,"  "smut-dealer,"  "moral 
cancer-planter,"  etc.,  etc.  It  is  a  regrettable  fact  that  the  miscalled 
"moral"    majority  is  still   too  ignorant  to  know  that  such  question- 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  175 

begging  epithets,  when  unsupported,  are  not  argument,  and  its  members 
are  too  obsessed  with  sensual  images  to  be  open  to  any  proof  against 
their  resultant  "obscene"  superstition. 

Think  it  over  and  see  if  when  you  cease  to  believe  in  the  existence  of 
"obscenity,"  you  must  not  also  cease  to  find  it.  If  that  be  true,  then  it 
exists  only  in  the  minds  and  the  emotions  of  those  who  believe  in  the 
superstition.  Connect  your  mind  with  a  sewer,  and  empty  therein  all 
the  ideational  and  emotional  associations  which  the  miscalled  "pure" 
people  have  forced  into  your  thoughts.  Having  done  this,  you  may  be 
prepared  to  believe  that  "unto  the  pure,  all  things  are  pure,  but  unto 
them  that  are  defiled  and  unbelieving,  is  nothing  pure,  but  even  their 
mind  and  conscience  is  defiled."  (Titus,  1-15).  Not  till  thus  cleansed 
can  you  join  in  these  words:  "I  know  and  am  persuaded  by  the  |Lord 
Jesus  that  there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself,  but  to  him  that  esteemeth 
anything  to  be  unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean."     (Romans  14,  14.) 

When  you  have  cleansed  your  own  mind  of  the  "obscene"  supersti- 
tion, proclaim  a  real  purity  on  the  highways  and  byways,  until  other 
minds  are  likewise  cleansed,  and  then  our  obscenity  laws  will  soon  die 
a  natural  death,  and  healthy-mindedness  will  have  a  chance  to  control 
the  normal  functioning  of  a  healthy  body. 

Once  let  the  public  become  sufficiently  clean-minded  to  allow 
every  adult  access  to  all  that  is  to  be  known  about  the  physi- 
ology, psychology,  hygiene  and  ethics  of  sex,  and  in  two  gener- 
ations we  will  have  a  new  humanity,  with  more  health  and  joy, 
fewer  wrecked  nerves  and  almost  no  divorces.  All  morbid  curi- 
osity will  then  be  dispelled,  and  thus  the  dealer  in  bawdy  art 
and  literature  will  be  bankrupted.  Our  sanitariums,  and  hospitals  and 
insane  asylums  in  that  day  will  be  uninhabited  by  those  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  inmates  who  are  now  there  because  of  compulsory  ignor- 
ance of  their  own  sex  nature.  All  these  present  evils  are  the  outgrowth 
of  that  enforced  sexual  ignorance  resulting  from  our  legalized  prudery, 
brought  about  by  our  general  acquiescence  in  the  "obscene"  superstition, 
forced  upon  us  by  the  vehement  insistence  of  our  over-sexed,  prurient 
prudes.  Let  all  clean-minded  persons  unite  to  abolish  this  twin  to  the 
witchcraft  superstition  and  secure  the  annullment  of  all  present  laws 
against  "obscene"  literature.  Thus  you  can  best  further  the  interest  of 
humanity  by  promoting  a  sane  and  scientific  physical  and  moral  culture. 

Upon  the  Federal  and  all  State  statute  books  we  have  penal  laws 
against  "obscene  and  indecent"  literature.  No  criteria  of  obscenity  or 
indecency  are  furnished,  such  as  should  inform  the  citizen  as  to  what  is 
prohibited .  So  it  comes  to  pass  that  anything  is  "obscene"  which  a  jur)-, 
prosecuting  attorney,  court  or  postal  official  may  see  fit  to  call  by  that 
name.     Although  the  defendant  is  honestly  of  a  different  opinion,  this 


176  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

only  entitles  him  to  righteous  judicial  abuse,  in  addition  to  a  fine  or  jail 
sentence.  By  reason  of  this  uncertainty  in  the  statute  (which  in  my 
opinion  renders  it  unconstitutional*)  it  has  come  to  pass  that  the  deter- 
mination of  what  is  prohibited  is  fixed,  not  by  the  rules  of  the  law-enact- 
ing power,  but  by  the  whim,  caprice,  or  malice  of  the  most  active  and 
aggressive  of  our  moralists.  In  other  words,  it  has  come  to  pass,  with 
your  acquiescence,  that  a  jury  of  farmers  or  a  department  clerk  decides 
what  even  a  physician  may  or  may  not  read  upon  the  subject  of  sex.  You 
didn't  know  that,  and  doubt  it?  Quite  likely!  But  the  real  question 
is  what  are  you  going  to  do  about  it  when  convinced  ? 


EDWIN  C.  WALKER:  From  "The  Revival  of  Puntanism." 

For  many  years  now  the  mails  of  the  United  States  have  been  under  a 
censorship  established  by  law  in  the  name  of  morality.  Under  that  law 
E.  H.  Heywood,  D.  M.  Bennett,  Moses  Harman  and  other  reformers 
have  been  imprisoned  and  Dr.  Foote  and  many  more  have  been  fined. 
The  man  who  fills  the  oflBce  of  chief  censor  has  boasted  that  he  has  hound- 
ed to  death  more  than  a  score  of  men,  and  we  all  know  something  of  the 
law  and  the  suffering  it  has  caused  as  administered  by  Comstock,  Mc- 
Afee, Chase,  and  the  rest.  At  present  there  is  pending  in  Congress  a 
bill  intended  to  make  the  law  as  it  exists  much  more  oppressive  and  there 
is  also  another  bill,  drafted  for  the  purpose  of  extending  the  same  cen- 
sorship to  the  matter  carried  by  the  express  companies. |  Agents  of  the 
post  office  department.  United  States  judges  and  juries,  and  postmasters 
have  the  effrontery  to  tell  the  citizen  what  he  may  and  may  not  send 
through  the  mails.  He  must  not  send  money  to  a  lottery  company,  he 
must  not  have  sent  to  him  lottery  advertisements,  he  must  not  receive 
by  mail  books  treating  on  sexual  topics  if  some  official  ignoramus  thinks 
that  they  are  not  up  to  his  standard — or  down  to  it,  as  the  case  may  be ; 
he  must  not  receive  artistic  representations  of  the  human  body  if  the 
censor  thinks  that  it  is  "  obscene  " — men  have  been  punished  for  mailing 
reproductions  of  Power's  Greek  Slave!  While  in  England — "effete" 
England — and  her  Australian  colonies,  the  citizen  may  advertise  to 
send  by  mail  and  receive  through  that  channel  information  and  materials 
pertaining  to  the  preventive  limitation  of  population,  the  citizen  of  "  free  " 
America  is  guilty  of  a  felony  if  he  does  either.  Our  law-makers  appear 
to  prefer  abortion  to  prevention;  perhaps  because  they  see  that  it  will 
give  the  judges  and  jailers  more  to  do  and  therefore  more  pay — ^and 
blackmail. 

♦See:  "Due  Process  of  Law  in  relation  to  Statutory  Uncertainty  and  Constructive  Offenses," 
published  by  the  Free  Sjseech  League,  120  Lexington  Avenue,  New  York  City;  also,  "Constructive 
Crimes  Defined,"  in  Central  Law  Journal,  Dec.  18,  1908. 

tBoth  amendments  have  been  adopted  since  the  foregoing  was  written.  The  first  adds  the 
word  "filthy"  to  the  law,  and  the  second  applies  the  law  to  all  inter-state  express  business. 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  177 

For  some  years  the  Canadian  customs'  authorities  have  shown  a  strong 
disposition  to  meddle  with  the  circulation  of  Freethought  books  and 
papers.  Paine's  "  Age  of  Reason,"  Ingersoll's  works,  and  the  "  Old  Testa- 
ment  Stories  "  of  the  Truth  Seeker  Company  have  in  turn  been  attacked, 
and  sometimes  torn  up  or  burned.  In  August,  1895,  the  Postmaster- 
General  of  Canada  forbade  the  circulation  of  the  Tridh  Seeker  through 
the  mails  of  that  country.  (For  particulars,  see  the  Truth  Seeker  of 
September  28,  1895.)  The  alleged  offense  was  "scurrility."  If  the 
Henderson-Hayes  bill,  several  times  offered  in  Congress,  should  become 
a  law  it  would  be  within  the  power  of  the  Postmaster-General  in  the 
United  States  to  shut  out  of  the  mails  witJwut  a  hearing  of  any  kind  The 
Truth  Seeker,  Investigator,  Our  New  Humanity,  Lucifer,  or  even  such 
an  influential  journal  as  the  New  York  World  or  such  a  magazine  as  the 
Century*  It  would  make  him  absolute  censor  of  the  periodical  reading 
matter  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  just  as  the  Postmaster-GenenJ 
of  Canada  is  the  absolute  censor  of  the  periodical  reading  matter  of  the 
people  of  that  Dominion.  Who  will  dare  affirm  that  there  is  not  a 
*'  Revival  of  Puritanism  "  or  that  the  union  of  church  and  state  is  not 
each  day  becoming  more  close  ? 

Puritanism  is  also  manifested  in  the  supervision  to  which  news-stands, 
bulletin  boards,  theaters,  and  the  Uke  are  being  subjected  more  and 
more  each  year.  In  Philadelphia,  the  Quaker  God-in-the-Constitution 
champion,  Josiah  Leeds,  has  been  so  active  that  many  of  the  news-stands 
will  not  handle  certain  pubUcations  and  sometimes  convictions  have 
been  secured  against  those  who  would  not  obey  orders,  and  against  bill 
posters.  In  Chicago,  Mayor  Hopkins  destroyed  fences  and  bulletin 
boards  which  were  covered  with  posters  which  he  did  not  like,  or  that 
some  of  the  official  and  semi-official  busybodies.  whom  he  was  anxious 
to  please,  did  not  like.  As  these  fences  and  boards  were  on  private 
property  and  as  he  had  no  legal  authority  to  destroy  them,  he  had  re- 
course to  the  brilliant  expedient  of  stealing  out  at  night  to  accomplish 
his  purpose.  You  are  all  famiUar  with  the  attempts  made  in  New  York 
City  to  Puritanize  the  art  stores,  the  bulletin  boards,  the  theaters.  You 
know  how  Comstock  has  entered  club  rooms  and  art  stores  and  taken 
and  destroyed  a  large  amount  of  valuable  property,  and  you  also  know 
that  he  has  never  been  punished  for  any  act  of  his,  no  matter  how  grossly 
outrageous  it  was  or  how  much  suffering  it  has  caused.  You  know  of 
the  supervision  exercised  over  theatrical  performances  by  the  police  at 
the  instigation  of  various  semi-official  societies ;  of  the  crusade  there  and 
in  London  against  "Living  Pictures"  and  concert  halls:  you  are  ac- 
quainted with  the  refusal  of  the  London  County  Council  to  renew  the 
license  of  the  Empire  Music  Hall,  owing  to  the  outcry  raised  by  Mrs. 
Ormiston  Chant,  Lady  Isabel  Somerset,  and  their  followers,  and  you 

♦Since  realiced«  without  a.  statutb,  in  the  osae  of  lucifkr,  BuasNicB,  and  other  publications . 


178  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

know  also  that  that  famous  '*  reformer,"  the  labor  leader,  John  Burns, 
who  is  a  member  of  the  London  County  Council,  voted  with  the  majority 
to  shut  up  the  Music  Hall  and  thus  send  its  inmates  out  upon  the  streets. 
There  is  also  a  society,  with  headquarters  in  Chicago,  and  of  which  some 
very  prominent  members  of  both  the  Protestant  and  Catholic  wings  of 
the  Church  are  active  promoters,  the  object  of  which  is  to  drive  off  the 
news-stands  everytliing  that  is  distasteful  to  the  society.  One  of  these 
men  has  recently  been  decorated  by  the  Pope  for  his  zeal  in  behalf  of 
religious  morals.  It  should  be  said  in  passing  that  the  influence  of  the 
Puritanic  element  is  already  so  strong  that  it  is  practically  impossible  to 
get  any  distinctively  Freethought  work  into  the  channels  of  trade  through 
the  agency  of  the  American  News  Company.  The  silly  rejection  by 
Secretary  Carlisle  and  the  Senatorial  committee  of  the  design  of  Mr.  St. 
Gaudens  for  the  World's  Fair  medal  has  not  been  forgotten,  nor  the  re- 
fusal of  Colonel  Wilson  and  Mrs.  Cleveland  to  accept  for  the  White 
House  the  painting,  "  Love  and  Life,"  presented  to  the  government  by 
the  English  artist  Watts.  The  draping  of  nude  statuary  in  several  towns 
during  the  past  few  years  will  likewise  be  recalled.  A  delegation  of 
preachers  called  on  the  stockliolders  of  the  Texas  State  Fair  and  Dallas 
Exposition  Association  to  close  the  gates  on  Sunday,  stop  all 
gambling,  remove  the  pictures  of  the  nude  and  cover  the  statuary.  But 
I  must  not  devote  more  space  to  this  division  of  the  subject;  multitu- 
dinous evidences  of  the  revival  of  the  Puritanic  desire  to  run  the  world  in 
its  own  narrow  grooves  are  patent  to  all  observant  readers  of  the  press. 
However,  I  must  not  omit  mention  of  the  ordinances  adopted  in  a  number 
of  cities  and  towns  and  the  orders  issued  by  business  houses  and  the 
managers  of  bathing  establishments  against  the  reform  costume  of  women 
bicycle  riders  and  bathers. 


JOHN  RUSSELL  CORYELL:  From  "Comstockery." 

In  those  early  days  a  confectioner  on  Fulton  street  sought  to  attract 
customers  by  exhibiting  in  his  window  a  painting  by  a  great  artist.  If 
memory  serves,  it  was  "The  Triumph  of  Charles  V."  by  Hans  Makart. 
Figures  of  nude  females  were  in  the  picture,  and  Comstockery,  established 
in  its  censorship  of  art  and  solemnly  unconscious  of  its  appalling  ignor- 
ance, but  true  to  its  fundamental  pruriency,  ordered  the  picture  removed 
from  the  window.  And  it  was  removed.  Just  as  Boston,  finding  its 
bronze  bacchante  immodest,  rejected  the  brazen  hussy.  And  now  she 
stands  on  her  pedestal  in  the  Metropolitan  Musuem  in  New  York,  giving 
joy  to  the  beholder,  and — not  ordered  down  by  Comstockery.  W^hy  ? 
And  why  is  not  the  whole  museum  purged  of  its  nude  figures  ?     It  is 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  179 

a  puzzle  not  even  to  be  solved  by  the  theory  of  change  in  public  senti- 
ment; for  it  is  only  a  few  months  ago  that  the  art  censor-in-chief  of  Com- 
stockery  saw  in  the  window  of  an  art  dealer  on  Fifth  avenue  a  landscape 
in  which  figured  several  nude  children  discreetly  wandering  away  from 
the  beholder.  The  picture  was  ordered  out  of  the  window  forthwith. 
And  went.  .  .  .We  are  beginning  to  understand  that  right  living  is  a 
purely  physical  matter,  and  that  morals  are  only  laws  of  health;  and  if 
there  are  yet  but  few  who  dare  take  so  radical  a  view  of  morals  as  that, 
still  there  are  quite  as  few  who  will  not  admit  freely  that  nothing  can  be 
immoral  which  is  beneficial  to  the  human  body.  .  .  .  We  might  easily 
have  been  taught  that  digestion  was  a  moral  matter,  not  to  be  talked  of, 
not  to  be  studied ;  ignorance  of  which  was  a  virtue,  knowledge  of  which 
a  crime.  And  then,  under  those  conditions,  if  a  person,  possessed  of  a 
little  knowledge  such  as  might  have  crept  stealthily  down  the  ages,  were 
in  a  fine  humanitarian  spirit  to  dare  to  punish  some  of  the  things  he 
knew  in  order  to  help  dyspeptic  humanity,  he  would  have  been  robbed  of 
his  worldly  goods  and  clapped  forthwith  into  jail.  Fancy  that  under 
such  circumstances  a  man  who  had  lived  his  three  score  and  ten  years 
and  had  learned  something  from  his  own  suffering  and  experience, 
something  from  the  secretly  imparted  imformation  of  others,  might  not 
say  a  word  to  help  his  fellows.  Is  it  not  too  absurd  to  contemplate  with- 
out both  tears  and  laughter  that  that  man  who  should  plead  with  his 
fellow  men  to  obstain  from  habitually  living  on  butter  cakes  and  coffee, 
should  be  charged  with  obscenity  and  imprisoned  in  consequence  ?  And 
imagine  some  sapient  post  office  official  solemnly  declaring  that  any 
discussion  of  digestion  is  obscene!  Consider  how  the  land  would  be 
flooded  with  literature  describing  the  pleasures  of  gluttony  and  depict- 
ing impossible  gastronomic  feats!  Consider,  too,  trying  to  cure  indi- 
gestion and  to  suppress  the  orgies  of  our  children  in  pies,  crullers,  fritters, 
and  butter  cakes  by  the  naive  device  of  forbidding  all  knowledge  of  the 
digestive  function  and  making  the  utterance  of  the  nameof  a  digestive 
organ  an  obscenity  punishable  by  fine  and  imprisonment! 

Digestion  is  a  matter  to  be  considered  in  the  light  of  hygiene.  So  is 
sex.  Digestion  is  not  in  itself  either  moral  or  immoral.  Neither  is  sex. 
But  there  is  the  most  hideous  immorality  in  the  ascription  of  obscenity 
to  sex,  sex  function,  or  any  phase  of  sex  life.  And  this  is  the  crime  of 
Comstockery.  It  has  reared  an  awful  idol  to  which  have  been  secrificed 
the  best  of  our  youth;  with  hypocrisy  the  high-priest,  ignorance  the 
creed,  and  pruriency  the  detective. 

Comstockery  strikes  at  the  very  root  of  life.  It  forbids  that  we  shall 
know  how  to  live  our  best;  it  forbids  that  we  shall  know  how  to  save 
our  children  from  the  perils  we  have  so  discreditably  passed  through; 
it  raises  barriers  of  false  modesty  between  parents  and  children  by  brand- 
ing the  very  science  of  life  an  obscenity.     Owing  to  the  shocking  sug- 


180  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY. 

gestions  of  Comstockery,  all  that  relates  to  life  is  degraded  into  the  gutter; 
and  that  which  would  be  pure  and  sweet  and  wholesome  in  the  home 
or  in  the  school,  becomes  filthy  Comstockery  on  the  snickering  lips  of 
ignorant  playfellows. 

The  wonder  is  that  we  have  endured  the  nasty  thing  for  so  long  a  time. 
We  have  been  boys  and  girls  and  have  gone  from  our  parents  to  our 
school-mates  and  play-fellows  for  the  information  to  which  we  are  en- 
titled by  the  very  reason  of  living,  but,  more  than  all,  because  of  our  need  to 
live  right.  We  all  know  the  hideous  untruths  we  were  told  because  of 
Comstockery ;  we  all  know  how  much  we  had  to  unlearn,  and  how  great 
the  suflFering  mentally,  how  great  the  deterioration  physically  in  the  un- 
learning ;  we  all  know  our  unfitness  for  parentage  at  the  time  we  entered 
it;  every  man  knows  how  the  brothels  kept  open  doors  and  beckoning 
inmates  by  the  thousand  for  his  undoing.  And  yet  we  endure  it — Com- 
stockery. ... 

It  is  such  a  subtly  pervasive  thing,  this  Comstockery;  it  steals  in 
wherever  it  can  and  puts  the  taint  of  its  own  uncleanness  on  whatever 
it  touches.  Qothing  becomes  a  matter  of  Comstockery.  We  do  not 
always  see  it,  but  such  is  th*e  fact.  We  do  not  wear  clothing  for  con- 
venience, but  to  cover  our  nakedness.  You  see  nakedness  is  obscene. 
Not  in  itself,  but  only  in  man.  You  may  take  a  naked  dog  on  the  street, 
but  not  a  naked  human  being.  The  summer  previous  to  the  last  one 
was  a  very  hot  one  in  New  York,  and  a  poor  wretch  of  a  boy  of  fourteen 
years  of  age,  being  on  the  top  floor  of  a  crowded  tenement  was  half- 
crazed  by  the  heat  and  the  lack  of  fresh  air,  of  which  there  was  abso- 
lutely none  in  the  closet  in  which  he  was  trying  to  sleep.  He  ran  down 
into  the  street  nude  at  two  o  'clock  in  the  morning  in  the  hope  of  finding 
a  surcease  of  his  distress.  A  policeman  saw  him,  remembered  his 
blushing  Comstocker}'  in  time,  and  haled  the  poor  lad  oiF  to  a  cell.  The 
next  morning  the  magistrate  in  tones  of  grimmest  virtue  sent  the  boy  to 
the  reformator}%  remarking  with  appropriate  jest  that  the  young  scoun- 
drel might  have  seven  years  in  which  to  learn  to  keep  his  clothes  on.  .  .  . 

Let  us  rid  ourselves  of  the  fatal,  prurient  restrictions  on  sex  discussion 
and  in  a  marvellously  short  time  we  shall  have  a  store  of  sweet  knowledge 
on  the  subject  that  will  enable  us  to  live  well  ourselves  and  fit  us  to 
bring  into  the  world  such  children  as  will  amaze  us  with  their  health  of 
body  and  purity  of  mind.  No  alteration  of  the  facts  of  life  is  necessary, 
but  only  a  change  of  attitude.  Why,  when  Trilby  brought  the  bare  foot 
into  prominence,  it  was  gravely  debated  whether  or  not  such  an  indecency 
should  be  permitted.  It  was  assumed  that  a  naked  foot  was  indecent. 
Why  a  foot  more  than  a  hand  ?  Why  any  one  part  of  the  body  more 
than    another?     Comstockery!     Comstockery! 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  181 

THE  NEW  YORK  HOME  JOURNAL:   Frcm  EdUorialt. 

Among  the  settled  principles  of  every  Anglo-Saxon  community  none 
certainly  is  more  tenaciously  held  to  than  the  freedom  of  the  press,  none 
is  felt  to  be  more  radically  grounded  in  its  political  hfe— this  is  an  as- 
sertion which  has  long  since  become  a  truism.  But  not  the  least,  say 
rather  the  greatest,  of  the  benefits  arising  from  the  freedom  of  the  press 
is  the  sense  of  personal  responsibiUty  for  the  welfare  of  the  community 
which  it  brings  home  to  its  members — a  sentiment  which  can  have  but 
a  comparatively  feeble  hold  in  a  community  where  everything  is  regu- 
lated from  above,  and  where,  consequently,  under  a  surface  of  excellent 
seeming,  the  holiest  springs  of  life  may  be  sapped. 

It  is  to  this  very  freedom  of  the  press,  and  the  sense  of  individual  re- 
sponsibiUty which  it  fosters,  that  is  due  the  sensitiveness  of  the  American 
pubhc  to  that  abuse  by  which  a  free  press  in  the  hands  of  base-minded 
persons  may  be  made  an  agency  for  the  defilement  of  the  public  morals. 
It  is  felt  that  some  restriction  must  be  imposed.  Yet  on  what  principle 
this  restriction  may  be  grounded,  so  as  not  to  contravene  the  cherished 
law  of  freedom — on  this  point  there  seems  to  be  a  lamentable  lack  of 
precision  of  thought.  And  in  view  of  the  present  state  of  the  laws,  and 
the  recent,  in  the  opinion  of  many  good  citizens,  unwarranted  procedures 
under  them,  it  is  a  point  which  demands  discussion  and  a  more  satis- 
factory settlement. 

That  the  freedom  of  the  press  opens  a  wide  gateway  for  the  emission 
of  erroneous  opinion — opinions  which  directly  or  indirectly  may  lead  to 
immoraUty  of  life;  this  is  necessarily  implied.  Of  course,  under  the 
sovereignty  of  a  free  press,  no  restriction  may  be  imposed  upon  the  pub- 
lication of  opinions  on  the  plea  that  they  manifestly  tend  to  vitiation  of 
morals.  Freedom  of  the  press  means  an  open  battle-ground  for  truth 
and  error,  under  the  conviction  that  the  former  is  mighty  and  will  prevail. 
That  the  publication  of  slanderous  aspersions  upon  private  character 
shall  be  made  punishable — ^this  is  easily  reconcilable  with  the  principle 
of  freedom  and  needs  no  justification.  But  when  we  pass  beyond 
these  primary  distinctions  into  the  direct  relations  of  a  free  press  to 
morals  and  decency,  we  enter  a  domain  where,  in  the  enthusiasm  of 
vvirtue,  we  may  easily  transgress  the  principle  of  freedom,  and  by  ill- 
considered  restrictions  entail  in  the  end  more  harm  than  good. 

Our  national,  if  not  our  local,  laws  in  this  field  have  been  hastily 
penned,  and  would  seem  to  have  been  promoted  by  a  desire  to  subserve 
a  transient  personal  end  rather  than  the  pubhc  good.  If  strictly  carried 
out  in  accordance  with  the  interpretation  that  has  been  put  upon  them, 
they  would  cripple  at  once  the  excellent  work  of  the  Bible  Society,  and 
restrict  our  publishers  to  expurgated  editions  of  Shakspere,  Byron 
Chaucer,  and  the  whole  army  of  poets,  ancient  and  modem,  with  scarce 


182  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

an  exception.  Were  the  laws  applied  thus  vigorously  and  impartially, 
the  public  would  soon  become  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  a  new  inter- 
pretation or  a  stricter  definition  of  the  original  intent,  and  it  would  soon 
be  emphatically  made  known  that  the  public  was  not  prepared  to  relegate 
to  the  courts  the  choice  of  its  literary  recreations,  and  that  freedom  of 
the  press  implied  the  exercise  of  individual  judgment  in  matters  of 
literary  taste  as  well  as  in  the  discussion  of  opinions.  Of  course  there 
is  no  ground  for  fear  that  our  well-meaning  but  narrow-minded  zealots 
will  seek  to  effect  so  wide  and  impartial  an  application  of  the  law.  But 
that  they  could  be  restrained  from  doing  so  by  the  force  of  public  opinion 
alone  [only]  is  sufficient  proof  that  the  law,  as  it  is  now  interpreted,  is  one 
which  in  their  hands  can  be  made  the  instrument  of  great  injustice. 

The  application  of  the  law  as  it  stands  turns  upon  the  meaning  which 
shall  be  put  upon  the  word  "decency."  But  decency  is  something  not 
absolute  but  largely  relative  to  time,  place,  circumstance,  individual 
peculiarities  of  character,  conditions  of  culture,  and  force  of  habit.  A 
gown  exce.ssively  decollete  may  be  worn  without  reproach  at  the  Queen's 
levee;  the  same  gown  worn  in  the  open  street  would  bring  the  wearer  to 
a  personal  acquaintance  with  the  interior  of  a  police  court.  A  ballet 
girl,  on  the  other  hand,  may  by  her  early  training  accustom  herself  to 
appear  upon  the  stage,  without  shame,  in  a  costume  which  she  would 
indignantly  refuse  to  don  except  in  her  professional  character.  The  in- 
habitant of  a  country  village — educated  he  may  be,  liberal  minded,  too, 
in  many  dirfjctions,  a  college  professor,  perhaps — will  yet  turn  away 
with  an  abashed,  shame-faced  look  from  the  nude  human  beauty  of  a 
classic  statue  before  which  the  city-bred  maiden  will  stand  in  admiration 
without  thought  of  ill.  So,  too,  in  literature,  what  may  and  should  pass 
without  reproach  under  that  poetic  expression  which  addresses  the  sense 
of  beauty  alone,  may  become  indecent  in  plain  prose  or  when  divorced 
from  the  place  for  which  it  was  designed ;  or,  like  the  nude  in  art,  it  may 
affect  the  reader  as  decent  or  indecent  according  to  the  peculiarity  of  his 
culture.  Again,  in  the  sunny  South,  negroes  and  half-breeds  go  scantily 
clad  without  shock  to  the  public  sense  of  decency,  while  custom  enforces 
the  strictest  observance  in  dress  on  the  part  of  the  whites.  Instances, 
of  course,  might  be  multiplied  almost  indefinitely  in  all  directions,  show- 
ing that  decency  is  largely  determined  by  conditions  of  place,  circum- 
stance, mental  temperament,  and  culture,  etc. 

Clearly,  therefore,  it  may  become  a  very  nice  matter,  in  many  cases, 
to  decide  whether  an  accusation  of  literary  or  artistic  indecency  is  well 
founded,  a  matter  the  decision  of  which  ought,  if  possible,  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  college  of  experts.  But  to  whom,  in  point  of  fact,  is  this 
delicate  matter  intrusted?  To  a  jury  of  twelve  men  raked  together  at 
haphazard.  An  accusation  before  such  a  court  as  this — for  it  is  the  jury 
that  in  this  instance  constitute  the  court,  it  is  they  who  interpret  the  law 


MODERN  CENSORSHIP  OF  OBSCENITY  183 

— an  accusation  under  these  circumstances  can  hardly  fail  to  lead  to 
condemnation,  however  unjust,  for  the  average  juryman  will  consider 
his  own  reputation  for  decency  as  at  stake;  he  will  hesitate  to  acquit  lest 
the  pubUc  should  get  the  idea  that  he  himself  was  not  over-nice  or  strict 
in  his  sense  of  decency;  indeed,  the  more  foul  he  may  be  in  his  own 
conversation  and  walk,  the  more  likely  is  he,  when  thus  publicly  placed, 
to  wrap  himself  in  the  toga  of  the  rigid  censor.  But  that  an  accidental 
association  of  twelve  men,  of  whose  fitness  for  the  task  the  public  knows 
nothing,  whose  positive  unfitness  for  it  may,  indeed,  be  presumed,  should 
be  permitted  to  decide  just  where  lies  the  nice  border-line  between  de- 
cency and  indecency,  seems  a  strange  anomaly  under  a  government  like 
ours.  Certainly,  either  the  law  should  be  made  more  specific,  so  that 
matters  of  fact  only  should  come  under  the  cognizance  of  the  jury,  or  a 
competent  court  of  public  censors  should  be  organized.  The  present 
arrangement  is  an  offense  against  the  acknowledged  principles  of  our 
political  life,  and  readily  lends  itself  as  an  instrument  of  injustice  in  the 
hands  of  bigots  or  of  private  revenge  in  the  hands  of  the  unscrupulous ; 
it  gives  coveted  opportunity  to  the  opponents  of  free  thought — a  class  by 
no  means  extinct — to  seek,  under  the  cloak  of  a  zeal  for  the  public  morals, 
to  suppress  the  honest  discussion  of  social  questions. 

But  we  stand  in  need  of  some  more  clearly  defined  principle  in  this 
matter.  How  far  may  we  go  in  our  restrictive  measures  without  con- 
travening the  freedom  of  the  press  ?  Not  to  aim  here  at  niceties  of  dis- 
tinction, we  may  say  generally  that  the  legislation  in  this  field  should 
limit  itself  in  the  intent  of  its  application  to  the  youth  of  the  nation,  to 
those  who  have  not  yet  come  into  their  rights  as  citizens.  In  the  case  of 
these  certainly  the  principle  of  the  "  freedom  of  the  press  "  does  not  apply. 
Every  parent  claims,  and  every  judicious  parent  will  exercise,  the  right 
to  regulate  the  reading  of  his  child.  But  the  youth  of  the  nation  are 
also  the  wards  of  the  state,  and  the  state  may,  therefore,  in  loco  parentis, 
exercise  a  similar  right;  nor  in  thus  controlling  the  issues  of  the  press, 
with  a  view  to  the  protection  of  its  wards  from  contaminating  influences, 
will  it  necessarily  infringe  upon  the  law  of  liberty.  Yet  even  within  this 
scope  legislation  must  of  course  be  carefully  defined  and  guarded  lest  it 
go  beyond  its  intent.  But  as  to  governmental  interference  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  private  morals  of  the  citizens  of  the  republic  through  re- 
strictions upon  the  freedom  of  the  press,  this  does  not  lie  within  the  limits 
of  institutions  framed  like  ours,  and  is  inconsistent  with  the  vital  prin- 
ciple of  our  policy.  Those  who  are  presumably  competent  to  determine 
by  their  vote  the  direction  of  affairs,  are  presumably  competent  to  choose 
for  themselves  between  the  right  and  the  wrong  in  all  that  concerns  their 
purely  personal  morality  as  well  as  in  matters  of  opinion.  For  govern- 
ment to  step  in  and  say,  You  shall  not  read  this,  you  shall  not  read  that, 
lest  it  corrupt  your  morals,  will  seem  too  absurd  to  most  American  citizens 


184  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY. 

to  be  worthy  of  serious  consideration.  And  yet  this  is  what  the  govern- 
ment is  at  the  present  time  made  to  do  by  well-meaning  zealots,  ignorant 
juries,  and  narrow-minded  judges,  through  the  inslrumentahty  of  ill- 
conceived,  hastily-passed  laws. 


It  is  not  a  sufficient  answer  to  say  that  a  large  portion  of  our  citizens 
are  not  competent  to  regulate  aright  their  private  morals.  True,  and 
pity  'tis  'tis  true.  But  interference,  restriction,  repression,  except  in 
what  concerns  the  external  relations  of  these  unfortunate  or  misguided 
citizens,  are  not  the  best  remedies,  even  if  they  were  legitimately  open 
to  us  without  a  governmental  change  of  base.  The  spirit  we  have  con- 
jured will  not  down  at  our  bidding.  We  have  trusted  to  Uberty,  and 
must  abide  her  direction.  For  ourselves,  we  have  faith  that  in  matters 
of  moraUty,  not  less  than  in  matters  of  opinion,  the  largest  lil>erty  of 
expression  and  conduct  consistent  with  social  order  and  personal  rights 
will  best  conduce  to  the  moral  as  weU  as  the  intellectual  advancement 
of  the  people. 


SECTION    VI. 

FREE     SEX-DISCUSSION;     BRIEFER    DEFENSES 


The  best  brought-up  children  are  those  who  have  seen  their  parents 
as  they  are.     Hypocrisy  is  not  the  parent's  first  duty.— G.  B.  Shaw. 

When  it  comes  to  a  race  for  dirt,  prudery  and  pruirency  are  neck  and 
neck.— John  G.  Woolley  in  The  New  Voice. 

Personally,  I  feel  that  it  is  an  extremely  foolish  law,  and  if  I  had  been 
a  legislator  I  never  would  have  voted  for  it.— Judge  John  R.  Brady,  on 
Comstock  postal  law. 

A  poUcy  that  produces  a  verminous  breed  of  spies  and  informers  is 
more  mischievous  to  society  than  the  misdemeanors  which  it  seeks  to 
suppress.— Philadelphia  Record,  January  20,  1889. 

Libel  and  treason  are  crimes;  so  is  the  circulation  of  obscene  litera- 
ture. But  no  theory  is  a  crime.  The  state  can  deal  only  with  overt 
acts;  there  is  no  safety  for  liberty  if  it  can  deal  with  thoughts. — Index. 

Hypocrites  and  bigots  have  cunningly  devised  the  crime  of  obscenity 
and  caused  it  to  be  entered  upon  the  statute  books  of  the  country,  by 
which  they  are  able  to  imprison,  annoy,  and  disgrace  independent  think- 
ers.— D.  M.  Bennett. 

The  stone  that  covers  a  thousand  wriggling  reptiles  is  misnamed 
"  Decency."     Its  true  name  is  Shelter. 

A  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  is  necessary  to  a  just  judgment  in  all 
things. — Emma  Wardlaw  Best. 

"  Who  told  thee  that  thou  wast  naked  ?"  That  question  is  perhaps 
the  oldest  recorded  rebuke  of  Comstockism.  The  implication  that  the 
hmnan  form  is  obscene  is  the  beginning  of  the  cultivation  of  nastiness 
of  mind. — ^The  Chicago  Tribune. 

It  is  impossible  to  define  what  is  an  immoral  or  obscene  publication. 
To  say  that  it  necessarily  tends  to  corrupt  or  deprave  the  morals  of 
readers,  supplies  no  definite  test. — Patterson's  Liberty  of  the  Press 
Speech  and  Public  Worship,  p.  70.     London,  1880. 

The  right  of  free  speech  is  the  priceless  gem  of  the  human  soul.  .  .  . 
I  regard  Comstock  as  infamous  beyond  expression.  I  have  httle  re- 
spect for  those  men  who  endeavor  to  put  down  vice  by  lying,  and  very 
little  respect  for  a  society  that  would  keep  in  its  employ  such  a  leprous 
agent. — IngersoU. 

The  Truth  is  the  best  of  friends  to  the  true  and  the  worst  of  enemies 
to  the  false;  the  most  abominable  of  nuisances  to  those  who  shun  her 
and  the  prince  of  delights  to  those  who  embrace  her;  the  king  of  terrors 
to  those  who  oppose  her  and  the  prince  of  peace  to  those  who  submit  to 
her. — ^William  H.  Wilgus. 


185 


186  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Nothing  but  a  false  sentimentality,  ignorance  of  the  most  important 
functions  of  life,  or  radical  misconceptions  of  their  dignity  and  nobility, 
can  explain  the  attitude  of  those  who  would  keep  these  great  mysteries 
[of  sex]  out  of  the  field  of  intelligent  study  and  instruction. — Christian 
Union,  November  19,  1892. 

It  should  not  be  necessary  to  point  out  the  dangers  to  the  freedom  of 
the  press  and  the  hberties  of  the  people  which  are  involved  in  thus  making 
one  man  prosecuting  attorney,  judge,  and  jury,  with  the  power  to  deny 
the  right  of  transmission  to  any  publication  which  in  his  opinion  is  of 
a  mistaken  tendency. — Lillian  Harman. 

The  world  is  full  of  perilous  fallacies  and  sophisms  respecting  marriage 
and  divorce,  which,  we  are  confident,  are  mischievous  only  because  they 
burrow  in  darkness  and  are  permitted  to  do  their  deadly  work  unopposed. 
Let  them  be  exposed  to  the  light  of  discussion,  and  they  will,  they  must, 
be  divested  of  their  baneful  power. — Horace  Greeley. 

The  government  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  moral  or  intellectual  qual- 
ity of  the  matter  transmitted  through  the  mails.  It  has  no  right  to  dis- 
criminate. If  it  may  discriminate  for  good  purposes  it  may  discriminate 
for  bad  purposes.  The  power  is  fraught  with  too  much  danger  of  abuse 
to  be  safely  intrusted  to  the  government. — New  York  Sun  editorial, 
December  23,  1878. 

"  The  people  perish  for  lack  of  knowledge,"  is  an  ancient  declaration 
almost  as  applicable  now  as  when  it  was  first  uttered,  and  it  is  largely 
owing  to  profound  ignorance  of  the  laws  of  our  physical  organization 
that  a  solitary  vice  has  gained  such  a  wide-spread  ascendency  that  mil- 
lions of  the  human  race  are  suffering  both  bodily  and  mental  degenera- 
tion therefrom. — Rev.  C.  H.  Spurgeon. 

Your  note  admonishes  me  of  a  duty  that  should  have  been  discharged 
before — the  duty  of  telling  you  that  your  argument  on  the  United  States 
"  Comstock  postal  law"  has  made  me  an  advocate  of  repeal  vs.  modifi- 
cation. The  discussion  of  this  autumn  has  brought  me  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  this  is  the  simple,  logical,  sensible,  and  only  satisfactory  method 
of  dealing  with  this  obnoxious  piece  of  legislation. — Rev,  O.  B.  Froth- 
ingham. 

Our  present  brutal  and  cruel  civilization  can  only  be  made  to  give  way 
to  a  higher,  better,  and  more  refined  one  through  the  maintenance  of  the 
highest  standard  of  health,  both  mental  and  physical,  and  by  a  universal 
knowledge  among  the  people  of  the  natural  laws-of  sex.  In  this  age, 
prudery,  begotten  of  a  lingering  superstition,  an  heirloom  of  savagery, 
unfortunately  militates  against  this  very  desirable  state  of  affairs. — 
Pacific  Medical  Journal,  January,  1905. 

In  the  early  anti-slavery  times  a  determined  effort  was  made  to  ex- 
clude from  the  mails  in  the  slave-holding  states  every  denunciation  of 
the  sum  of  all  iniquities — human  slaver}-.     The  people  protested  against 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         187 

the  espionage  put  upon  the  mails,  against  the  interference  [with]  the  free- 
dom of  the  press.  We  condemn  the  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  mails 
now,  though  it  be  with  a  very  different  intent,  because  it  violates  the 
same  great  essential  principles  of  libertv. — New  York  Sun,  December  23 
1878. 

We  insist  upon  a  return  to  fundamental  principles  of  Free-Speech, 
Free-Press,  and  Free-Mails  and  an  adherence  to  constitutional  guaran- 
tees which  assure  those  rights  to  the  citizen,  and  we  demand  that  the  laws 
shall  be  enforced  only  by  the  duly  authorized  officers  of  the  people.  In 
view  of  the  mischievous  possibilities  of  the  Comstock  laws,  we  demand 
their  repeal  as  being  a  source  of  confusion  in  the  administration  of  justice 
and  a  practical  denial  of  constitutional  rights. — General  Assembly, 
Knights  of  Labor,  Philadephia,  January,  1894, 

There  can  be  no  profound  ethical  culture  if  thinkers  who  grapple  with 
great  problems — those  of  sex  and  marriage  especially — are  liable  to 
suppression  by  ignorant  oflficials  who  confuse  their  own  vulgarity  with 
virtue.  Once  let  it  be  admitted  that  the  publication  of  any  book  or 
pamphlet  is  in  good  faith,  meant  for  the  public  good,  entirely  free  from 
corrupt  motives,  and  it  cannot  be  suppressed  without  violation  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  liberty.  .  .  .  They  Avho  menace  our  freedom 
of  thought  and  of  speech  are  tampering  with  something  more  powerful 
than  gunpowder. — Moncure  D.  Conway. 

In  every  community  there  are  human  elements  which  appear  to  be 
designed  for  the  express  purpose  of  making  virtue  odious.  Anthony 
Comstock  is  such  a  force  in  New  York.  He  follows  with  unfailing  vigor 
the  pursuit  of  imparting  to  the  best  the  complexion  of  the  worst.  Com- 
stock has  disturbed  again  and  again  the  patience  and  dignity  of  courts. 
A  cause  which  might  be  well  served  by  an  agent  with  discretion,  he  has 
often  brought  into  contempt.  For  vigilance  he  substitutes  meddhng; 
in  place  of  guardianship  he  gives  the  activities  of  a  busybody.  The 
good  things  he  does  are  forgotten  in  the  light  of  his  amazing  blunders. — 
New  York  World. 

Through  an  ex  cathedra  revelation  from  the  Supreme  Court,  made 
at  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  in  a  land  which  poses  in  the 
garb  of  "  Liberty  enhghtening  the  world,"  the  dogma  of  the  infalhble 
State  has  been  set  up  as  the  counterpart  of  the  dogma  of  the  infallible 
Church.  .  .  .  Tliis  new-born  heresy — created  to  meet  a  special  emer- 
gency— ^will  be  utterly  repudiated  by  the  American  people  the  moment 
that  the  despotic  and  irresponsible  power  over  opinion,  with  which  the 
fiat  of  the  Supreme  Court  has  armed  Congress,  is  applied,  as  it  surely 


188  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

will  be,  to  some  subject  which  will  arouse  and  quicken  the  public  con- 
science.— Hannis  Taylor  in  North  American  Review. 

These  vigilants  and  purifiers,  with  that  hypocritical  severity  which 
ever  makes  the  worst  sinner  in  private  the  most  vigorous  judge  in  pubUc, 
lately  had  the  imprudent  impudence  to  summons  a  publisher  who  had 
reprinted  the  "  Decameron  "  with  the  objectionable  passages  in  French. 
Mr.  Alderman  Faudell  PhilKps  had  the  good  sense  contemptuously  to 
dismiss  the  summons.  EngUshmen  are  no  longer  what  they  were  if 
they  continue  to  tolerate  this  ignoble  espionage  of  vicious  and  prurient 
virtuous  "  associations."  If  they  mean  real  work,  why  do  they  commence 
with  scholar-Uke  works,  instead  of  cleansing  the  many  foul  cesspools  of 
active  vice,  which  are  a  public  disgrace  to  London. — Sir  R.  F.  Burton. 

It  would  be  an  easy  task,  in  some  sense  valuable,  could  a  man  of  large 
experience  and  intelligent  sympathies  write  a  book  for  women,  in  which 
he  would  treat  plainly  of  the  normal  circle  of  their  physiological  lives 
but  this  would  be  a  method  of  dealing  with  the  whole  matter  which  would 
be  open  to  criticism,  and,  for  me  at  least,  a  task  difficult  to  the  verge  of 
the  impossible.  I  propose  a  superficial  plan  as  on  the  whole  the  most 
useful.  The  man  who  desires  to  write  in  a  popular  way  of  nervous 
women  and  of  her  who  is  to  be  taught  how  not  to  become  that  sorrowful 
thing,  a  nervous  woman,  must  acknowledge,  like  the  Anglo-Saxon  nov- 
elist, certain  reputable  limitations. — Dr.  S.  Weir  Mitchell  in  Doctor  and 
Patient. 

The  unwise  restriction  which  popular  prejudice  has  put  upon  consci- 
entious and  able  American  novelists,  has  prevented  them  treating  the 
great  problems  of  sin,  and  crime,  and  vice  in  actual  life  with  that  freedom 
and  sincerity  which  Dickens,  Thackeray,  and  George  Eliot  employed 
without  oilense,  and  to  the  best  moral  ends.  When  the  best  writers 
are  restrained  from  dealing  with  the  facts  of  life  in  a  lofty  tone,  the  worst 
writers  will  rush  in  and  deal  with  these  facts  in  a  low  and  shameless  tone 
and  will  receive  a  considerable  support;  because  the  public  wants  to- 
receive  truth,  and,  failing  to  get  it  from  high  and  pure  sources,  will 
greedily  take  a  garbled  representation  of  it  from  low  and  impure  sources. 
—The  Author  for  February,  1890. 

We  need  mental  as  well  as  moral  courage.  We  are  becoming  a  race 
of  sycophants,  cowards,  and  mental  dwarfs,  willing  to  take  what  others 
say  rather  than  exercise  our  God-given  reason,  and  too  ready  to  take  up 
and  unthinkingly  repeat  any  shibboleth  or  cry  raised  by  conventionalism 
or  by  classes,  which  are  in  many  instances  beneficiaries  of  privilege  or 
the  children  of  ancient  superstition  and  unreasoning  bigotry,  without 


BRIEFERlDEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         189 

boldly,  bravely,  and  conscientiously  studying  the  whole  question,  as  is 
our  duty  imposed  by  the  Infinite  who  gave  us  the  divine  gift  of  reason 
that  we  might  think  for  ourselves.  On  few  questions  is  it  more  important 
for  men  and  women  to  think  bravely  and  independently  than  on  those 
of  marriage  and  divorce. — B.  O.  Flower,  Editor  of  The  Arena. 

The  United  States  postal  authorities  consider  the  improvement  of  the 
race  too  obscene  a  topic  for  discussion.  A  woman  physician  attempted 
to  enlighten  prospective  mothers  on  the  care  of  their  bodies  during  an 
important  period;  a  quotation  from  her  essay  was  declared  unfit  for 
print,  and  the  paper  contaim'ng  it  was  cast  out  of  the  mails  by  a  Chicago 
postman  who  is  still  in  office. 

Ceri:ainly  women  receive  very  cavalier  treatment  at  the  hands  of  their 
men  superintendents ;  they  are  to  be  scorned  if  they  do  not  bear  children ; 
they  are  obscene  and  disgraced  except  they  Ije  wilhng  to  bear  them  ig- 
norantly;  they  are  driven  out  of  employment  the  moment  they  are  mar- 
ried for  fear  they  may  not  know  enough  to  resign  when  they  should. — 
*'  Cousin  Beatrice,"  in  the  San  Francisco  Star. 

Men  like  Mr.  Comstock  ought  to  be  confined  to  the  pursuit  and  re- 
pression of  everything  like  trade  in  positive,  undeniable,  unpretentious 
indecency  or  obscenity,  but  they  ought  to  be  very  careful  about  going 
in  quest  of  indecency  in  fields  where  the  scent  is  likely  to  be  light,  and 
their  opinions  disputed.  It  is  not  only  absurd,  but  mischievous,  to  have 
them  engage  in  controversy,  either  in  courts  of  justice  or  elsewhere,  over 
the  line  between  art  and  immorality.  Their  opinions  are  not  worth  a 
cent  in  such  matters,  and  by  airing  them  in  public  they  always  gather 
a  prurient  crowd  around  them,  and  stimulate  the  traffic  in  obscenity  by 
their  suggestions  and  their  argumentation.  If  there  is  to  be  a  prosecu- 
tion in  this  Knoedler  case,  and  these  prints  should  send  some  one  to  jail, 
we,  for  our  part,  think  Anthony  Comstock  should  be  the  man. — New 
York  Evening  Post,  1887. 

The  aberrations  of  the  sexual  instinct  are,  to  a  great  extent,  unknown, 
even  to  psychologists,  because  it  is  very  rarely  that  an  author  is  found 
who  has  the  courage  to  undertake  the  elucidation  of  forms  of  mental 
disease,  the  symtomatic  details  of  which  are  repulsive  to  the  moral 
sense;  and,  moreover,  the  hesitancy  of  authors  to  touch  the  subject  is 
increased  by  the  fact  that,  in  dealing  with  it,  they  come  to  be  associated 
in  the  pubUc  mind  with  traders  in  obscenity.  .  .  .  From  a  juridical  point 
of  view,  an  appreciation  of  this  is  of  great  importance,  and  we  may  say 
that  at  present  prejudice  usually  extinguishes  psychology,  and  the  aber- 
rations of  sexuality  are  universally  regarded,  not  as  the  outcome  of  mental 
.  disease  and  the  object  of  medical  treatment,  but  as  heinous  crimes,  to 


190  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

be  punished  with  the  utmost  rigor  of  the  law. — Medical  Press  and  Cir- 
cular, London,  August  17,  1889. 

It  was  Whitman's  intention  to  strip  off  all  mystery  from  the  relation 
of  the  sexes,  and  to  do  .away  with  all  concealment.  To  beget  children 
was  nothing  to  be  ashamed  of.  Bring  the  act  and  all  its  concomitants 
out  into  the  light  of  day!  Away  with  all  veils!  Now,  obscenity  implies 
the  precise  opposite  of  all  this.  It  depends  for  its  distinctive  character 
upon  mystery.  It  is  to  mystery  what  corruption  is  to  life.  The  two 
go  together.  Obscenity  is  mystery  perverted.  It  emphasizes  the 
veil  by  lifting  only  the  corner.  Its  spice  consists  in  hints  and  sly  glimpses 
and  half-allusions.  To  drag  the  whole  business  out  into  the  sunlight 
would  put  an  end  to  all  obscenity,  and  the  terra  would  soon  cease  to 
convey  any  meaning  to  mankind.  So  far  the  White  Cross  societies 
might  well  make  common  cause  with  the  Whitman  fellowship. — Ex- 
Judge  Ernest  Crosby. 

There  are  not  a  few  who  are  averse  to  having  the  subject  [of  prostitu- 
tion] so  much  as  mooted  among  those  whose  purity  and  virtue  are  the 
objects  of  their  concern.  The  very  title  of  such  a  book  they  would,  if  it 
were  in  their  power,  keep  from  meeting  the  eye  of  any  member  of  their 
domestic  circle.  Such  attempts  at  entire  concealment,  however,  can, 
in  few  instances,  in  a  world  and  a  city  like  ours,  prove  successful ;  and 
in  some  cases  there  is  reason  to  fear,  where  there  is  most  the  appearance 
of  success,  the  failure  is  really  the  greatest;  the  very  eagerness  to  conceal, 
on  the  one  side,  giving  rise  to  the  greatest  secrecy  and  reserve  on  the  other. 
I  say  this  for  the  purpose,  not  of  repressing  prudent  vigilance,  but  of 
modifying  overstrained  and  morbid  apprehensiveness,  which,  instead 
of  accomplishing  the  desired  ignorance,  may  lead  to  the  restraint  of  a 
salutary  knowledge. — Ralph  Wardlaw,  D.  D. 

From  age  to  age  the  established  guardians  of  public  morals  have  held 
that  it  is  not  safe  to  impart  knowledge  on  the  subject  of  generation,  about 
which  knowledge  is  so  much  needed  and  desired.  When  the  wondering 
child  comes  to  father  or  mother  with  curious  questions  he  is  at  once 
silenced  with  a  commanding  "  Hush !"  and  goes  away  wondering  and 
questioning  still  more.  The  child  grows  to  youth,  and  stealthily  obtains 
some  snatches  of  knowledge  which  only  sharpen  its  appetite  for  more. 
And  that  appetite  leads  him  to  swallow  with  avidity  whatever  informa- 
tion he  may  obtain  on  this  subject,  however  foul  it  may  be,  with  merely 
sensual,  profane,  and  degrading  'associations.  If  the  obscene-book 
vendor  finds  here  a  market  for  his  wares,  it  is  because  we  have  unlaw- 
fully withheld  knowledge  which  it  is  the  lawful  right  of  every  human 
being  to  possess. — Loring  Moody,  in  Heredity. 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         191 

A  learned  jurist  once  said:  "No  legislative  body  in  making  laws 
should  use  language  that  has  to  be  defended  and  construed  by  others." 
Every  crime  should  l)e  so  clearly  defined  that  there  can  be  no  mistaking 
it;  murder,  robbery,  arson,  burglary,  forgery,  and  so  forth  are  so  de- 
fined that  they  cannot  be  misunderstood.  It  is  not  so  with  obscenity; 
the  term  is  left  to  be  construed  by  judges,  lawyers,  juries — whosoever 
chooses  to  decide  what  is  obscene  and  what  is  not.  If  obscenity  is  a 
crime  punishable  by  a  fine  and  imprisonment,  it  at  least  ought  to  be  cor- 
rectly described  so  that  an  accused  person  shall  not  be  at  the  mercv  of  a 
man  or  a  number  of  men  who  construe  what  is  obscene,  what  is  indecent 
and  immoral,  by  their  own  particular  opinion  or  notion  of  moralitj'. 
What  is  obscene  to  one  man  may  be  as  pure  as  mountain  snow  to  an- 
other; and  one  man  should  not  be  empowered  to  decide  for  other  men. 
— Detroit  Sun,  January  17,  1886. 

The  Anthony  Comstock  legislation,  as  interpreted  by  the  courts 
and  the  postal  department,  is  entitled  to  no  more  respect  than  the  acts 
of  Parliament  which  our  Revolutionary  forefathers  defied,  or  the  pro- 
slavery  statutes  and  decisions  which  the  friends  of  liberty  violated 
and  apropos  of  which  Wendell  Phillips  declared,  "The  chief  use  of 
good  laws  is  to  teach  men  to  trample  bad  laws  under  their  feet."  We 
are  as  bound  to  break  bad  laws  as  we  are  to  keep  good  laws.  When- 
ever human  law  and  divine  law  become  irreconciliable,  the  human 
law,  not  the  divine  law,  should  be  violated.  "We  ought  to  obey  God 
rather  than  men."  The  leaders  and  saviors  of  men  have  often  been 
law-breakers.  Moses,  Daniel,  Peter,  Huss,  Luther,  Tell,  Kossuth, 
Bozzaris,  George  Washington,  and  John  Brown  were  law-breakers. 
Thank  God  for  the  brave  men  and  women  who  break  ba*l  laws  for 
conscience,  sake! — Dr.  Jeremiah  Justice. 

We  have  been  taught  to  believe  that  it  was  the  greatest  injustice 
toward  the  common  people  of  old  Rome  when  the  laws  they  were  com- 
manded to  obey,  under  Caligula,  were  written  in  small  characters,  and 
hung  upon  high  pillars,  thus  more  effectually  to  ensnare  the  people. 
How  much  advantage  may  we  justly  claim  over  the  old  Romans,  if 
our  criminal  laws  are  so  obscurely  written  that  one  cannot  tell  when 
he  is  violating  them  ?  If  the  rule  contended  for  here  is  to  be  applied 
to  the  defendant,  he  will  be  put  upon  trial  for  an  act  which  he  could 
not  by  perusing  the  law  have  ascertained  was  an  offense.  My  own 
sense  of  justice  revolts  at  the  idea.  It  is  not  in  keeping  with  the  genius 
of  our  institutions,  and  I  cannot  give  it  my  sanction.  .  .  .  The  indict- 
ment is  quashed,  and  the  defendant  is  discharged. — Judge  Turner,  on 
a  trial  for  depositing  an  obscene  sealed  letter  in  the  Post  Office.  Dist. 
Court  West  Dist.  of  Texas.     U.  S.  v.  Commersford,  25  Fed.  Rep.  904. 


192  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Anthony  Comstock  has  raided  the  Art  Students'  League  in  New  York. 
The  raid  can  be  viewed  as  the  expression  of  the  pruriency  that  wells  and 
bubbles  in  the  Comstockian  personality.  Comstock  sees  evil  every- 
where, unconscious  that  all  he  sees  is,  to  his  vision,  colored  by  the  veil 
of  his  own  nastiness.  .  .  .  Whatever  he  may  have  been  in  the  beginning 
of  a  career  the  latter  stages  of  which  excite  disgust,  he  is  now  a  nuisance, 
and  a  menace  to  decency.  He  has  himself  became  vicious.  His  pres- 
ence is  a  threat  against  good  morals.  In  all  he  says  there  is  a  manifes- 
tation of  baseness.  .  .  .  The  raid  upon  the  Art  Students'  League  was 
nothing  more  than  lewdness  exercising  the  right  to  be  censor,  and  in 
doing  this,  to  expose  its  bogus  virtue,  its  grotesque  zeal,  and  its  crass 
ignorance.  If  the  Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice  wants  to  suppress 
something  the  absence  of  which  would  be  elevating  to  morals  and  cheer- 
ing to  intelligence,  let  it  suppress  its  man  Comstock. — Philadelphia 
Public  Ledger. 

In  a  sinless  and  painless  world  the  moral  element  would  be  lacking; 
the  goodness  would  have  no  more  significance  in  our  conscious  life  than 
that  load  of  atmosphere  which  we  are  always  carrying  about  with  us. 
We  are  thus  brought  to  a  striking  conclusion,  the  essential  soundness  of 
which  cannot  be  gainsaid.  In  a  happy  world  there  must  be  pa  n  and 
sorrow,  and  in  a  moral  world  the  knowledge  of  evil  is  indispensable.  .  .  . 
The  alternative  is  clear — on  the  one  hand  a  world  with  sin  and  suffering, 
on  the  other  hand  an  unthinkable  world  in  which  conscious  Ufe  does  not 
involve  contrast.  .  .  .  What  would  have  been  the  moral  value  or  sig- 
nificance of  a  race  of  human  beings  ignorant  of  sin  and  doing  beneficent 
acts  with  no  more  consciousness  or  voUtion  than  the  deftly  contrived 
machine  that  picks  up  raw  material  at  one  end  and  turns  out  some  fin- 
ished product  at  the  other  ?  Clearly,  for  strong  and  resolute  men  and 
women,  an  Eden  would  be  but  a  fool's  paradise. — ^John  Fiske,  in 
"  Through  Nature  Up  to  God." 

Still  another  cause  is  to  be  found  in  the  infernal  system  of  laws  that 
have  been  enacted  and  are  now  in  force,  having  reference  to  the  entire 
question  of  sex  relations  of  every  description,  marital  or  otherwise.  .  .  . 
We  have  permitted  to  grow  up  in  this  country,  under  federal  protection, 
the  most  vicious  system  of  censorship  that  has  ever  disgraced  a  civiliza- 
tion. Under  its  ruUngs,  not  only  has  it  come  about  that  it  is  practically 
impossible  to  introduce  into  the  United  States  the  works  of  foreign 
writers,  of  the  highest  authority  on  sexology,  but  any  one  attempting  to 
publish,  either  in  the  public  prints  or  in  book  form,  anything  touching 
upon  such  vital  subjects,  not  only  places  himself  or  herself  in  danger  of 
fines  at  the  hands  of  the  courts,  but  of  all  other  forms  of  legal  persecution, 
including  a  term  of  years  in  prison.     So,  with  suppressing  the  informa- 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         193 

tion  on  one  side,  and  ignoring  the  matter  of  crass  ignorance  on  the  other, 
of  such  matters,  the  result  is  precisely  what  the  courts  and  the  clergy 
are  deploring.— Dr.  R.  W.  Shufeldt,  in  "  The  Whipping  Post,"  The  Arena 
February,  1906. 

There  are  some  offenses  worse  than  the  circulation  of  obscene  litera- 
ture. One  of  them  is  the  practise  of  fraud  and  lying  of  which  Anthony 
Comstock  has  apparently  been  guilty.  Mr.  Comstock  may  be  able  to 
reconcile  his  conduct  with  the  laws  of  God  and  morality,  but  this  court 
cannot  do  so.  I  cannot  approve  the  conduct  of  the  government  officer 
who  has  lured  the  defendant  into  the  commission  of  a  crime.  I  am 
aware  that  such  methods  are  often  pursued  in  dealing  with  alleged 
criminals,  but  I  am  not  wiUing  to  lend  my  assent  to  such  doctrine.  If 
government  officers  cannot  detect  criminals  and  enforce  laws  without 
resorting  to  dishonest  practices,  they  had  better  resign  their  positions. 

Mr.  Comstock  is  known  as  a  very  zealous  agent  in  preventing  the 
spread  of  obscene  literature;  but,  in  this  case,  instead  of  appealing  to 
state  law,  which  is  ample  for  the  emergency,  he  has  seen  fit  to  assume 
the  name  of  another  and  lure  the  defendant  into  crime. — U.  S.  Judge 
Jenkins  in  the  trial  of  C.  N.  Casper,  as  reported.  Twentieth  Century, 
February  11,  1892. 

Anthony  Comstock,  the  self-constituted  Keeper  of  Public  Morals, 
seeks  to  deny  to  the  community  afflicted  with  him  the  right  of  free  choice 
in  questions  of  art  and  literature.  That  Mr.  Comstock  has  neither  a 
critical  knowledge  of  the  one  nor  a  comprehensive  acquaintance  with 
the  other,  does  not  matter  in  the  slightest.  That  his  professional  prudery 
often  brings  him  into  direct  and  disastrous  conflict  with  the  opinions  of 
experts  when  the  status  of  "obscene"  pictures  or  books  is  concerned, 
is  of  no  account  whatever. 

But  even  Comstock,  king  of  the  prudes,  with  all  his  beetle  blindne.ss 
of  moral  vision,  will  hardly  deny  to  his  subjects  the  right  of  free  speech. 
His  attitude  in  this  respect  is,  however,  probably  a  matter  of  necessity 
rather  than  choice.  If  he  had  his  way,  it  is  easy  to  conceive  of  every 
man  having  a  modified  phonograph  attached  to  his  mouth,  the  records 
thereof  being  submitted  to  his  majesty,  to  be  passed  upon,  and  if  not  in 
accord  with  Comstockian  standards,  due  punishment  to  be  meted  out 
to  the  offenders. — Bernarr  Macfadden. 

Mr.  Anthimy  Comstock  comes  to  the  rescue  of  the  Society  for  the  Sup- 
pression of  Vice,  in  a  pamphlet  entitled :  "  Morals  versus  Art "  (J.  S.  Ogil  vie 
&  Company),  in  which  he  repeats  his  familiar  arguments  regarding  the 
nude  in  art,  and  shows  how  incompetent  he  is  to  discuss  the  question 
and  how  ill-fitted  by  nature  or  education  to  fill  the  important  office  he 


194  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

occupies.  In  saying  that  he  has  no  objection  to  a  picture  or  statue  of 
the  nude  female  figure,  provided  it  is  "  free  from  unchaste  posture  or  ex- 
pression," he  simply  begs  the  question  by  assuming  that  he  is  to  be  the 
sole  judge  in  the  matter  and  that  his  decison  is  final.  A  legislative  en- 
actment which  puts  so  much  power  in  the  hands  of  an  injudicious  not  to 
say  fanatical  man,  is  a  nuisance  which  ought  to  be  abated.  He  reviews 
the  case  of  Mr.  Knoedler  and  his  photographs  of  pictures  by  eminent 
modem  artists,  in  the  Paris  salon,  in  a  thoroughly  one-sided  manner, 
which,  however  it  may  gratify  his  self-complacency,  will  not  satisfy  com- 
mon sense  people.  His  remarks  about  New  York  artists  are  bitter,  but 
harmless  and  his  attacks  upon  the  press  ridiculous. — New  York  Sun. 

Society  takes  off  its  hat  in  the  presence  of  the  judge  who  sentences  the 
adulteress  to  prison,  or  of  the  severe  mistress  who  sends  away  her  servant 
who  has  been  betrayed,  but  it  claps  applause  to  the  poet  who  sings  of 
love  without  even  mentioning  marriage,  until  its  very  palms  ache. 
Every  one  in  public  assents  unctuously  to  the  proposition  that  it  is  a  sin 
to  obey  the  promptings  of  the  heart,  but  in  secret  he  listens  to  and  obeys 
them  with  enthusiasm,  and  does  not  consider  himself  wicked  in  doing  so. 
The  theory  of  Christian  moraUty  exists  only  because  no  one  applies  it  in 
practice.  The  bonds  of  an  enormous  conspiracy  unite  all  civilized 
humanity,  making  every  human  being  a  member  of  this  immense  secret 
society — on  the  street  they  bow  reverently  to  all  the  theological  doctrines 
they  may  meet,  but  at  home,  with  closed  doors,  they  sacrifice  to  nature 
and  wreak  their  vengeance  upon  anyone  who  divulges  the  secrets  of 
their  Eleusinian  mysteries ;  they  express  their  abhorrence  of  the  universal 
hypocrisy,  and  even  have  the  audacity  to  acknowledge  in  public  places 
the  gods  they  have  installed  as  presiding  deities  and  worship  in  private. 
— Max  Nordau. 

It  is  a  singular  thing  that  many  articles  which  are  read  by  proper  per- 
sons in  a  proper  place  and  with  proper  surroundings  do  not  suggest  to 
the  reader  even  a  trace  of  obscenity,  but  when  the  same  articles  are 
alleged  to  be  obscene  and  are  read  in  an  unusual  place,  under  unusual 
circumstances,  and  in  an  unusual  way,  that  the  allegation  sticks  to  them 
and  their  character  is  thus  fixed.  The  writings  of  Mr.  Berrier,  for  in- 
stance, would  not  have  seemed  obscene  if  they  had  come  into  the  hands 
of  President  McKinley,  we  will  say,  and  he  had  read  them  seriously. 
Obscenity  would  not  have  occurred  to  him.  But  coming  to  him  now 
stigmatized  by  an  indictment,  by  a  conviction,  and  by  a  felonious  im- 
prisonment, they  will  probably  be  received  in  a  different  character.  The 
accusation  of  the  agent  of  a  vice  society  con^^nced  the  Grand  Jury.  The 
indictment  convinced  the  trial  jury.  The  jury  convinced  the  Court 
and  the  Court  convinced  the  public.     Yet  there  was  no  guilt. — ^F.  H. 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         195 

C,  in  a  private  letter.  [Later  President  McKinley  did  pardon  Berrier 
because  convinced,  so  the  newspaper  reports  said,  that  the  matter  was 
not  obscene.] 

A  very  large  part  of  the  widespread  ignorance  in  matters  of  this  kind 
[perversion  and  inversion]  is  to  be  found  in  the  professions  of  law  and 
medicine,  and  to  a  criminal  extent  (so  far  as  the  pubhc  is  concerned)  is 
largely  due  to  laws  that  have  been  enacted  in  this  country  in  regard  to 
the  publication  and  selling  of  works  devoted  to  description  and  treatment 
of  psychical  and  sexual  abnormaUties  in  our  own  species.  Authors  of 
works  of  this  class  meet  with  the  greatest  difficulty  when  they  come  to 
have  them  printed  and  sold.  He  or  she  is  at  once  threatened  with  legal 
prosecution  and  fine  and  imprisonment.  Not  only  is  this  the  case 
regarding  works  published  in  our  country,  but,  through  another  most 
vicious  system,  works  published  abroad  by  authors  in  other  countries, 
having  to  do  with  the  psychology  of  sex  and  kindred  subjects,  are 
either  denied  introduction  here  altogether,  or  so  heavily  taxed  in  the 
custom  house  as  to  materially  discourage  their  introduction.  It  is  this 
miserable  state  of  affairs  that  is  responsible  for  the  prevalence  of  so 
much  ignorance  in  regard  to  sexology  in  general,  both  normal  and  ab- 
normal.— Pacific  Medical  Journal,  July,  1905. 

Whoever  reads,  with  philosophic  eye,  the  history  of  nations,  and  their 
laws,  will  generally  find  that  the  ideas  of  virtue  and  vice,  of  a  good  or  a 
bad  citizen,  change  wnth  the  revolution  of  ages ;  not  in  proportion  to  the 
alteration  of  circumstances,  and  consequently  conformable  to  the  com- 
mon good;  but  in  proportion  to  the  passions  and  errors  by  which  the 
different  law-givers  were  successively  influenced.  He  Avill  consequently 
observe  that  the  passions  and  vices  of  one  age  are  the  foundation  of  the 
morality  of  the  following ;  that  violent  passion,  the  offspring  of  fanaticism 
and  enthusiasm,  being  weakened  by  time,  which  reduces  all  the  phe- 
nomena of  the  natural  and  moral  world  to  an  equality,  become  by  de- 
grees the  prudence  of  the  age,  and  an  useful  instrument  in  the  hands  of 
the  powerful  or  artful  politician.  Hence  the  uncertainty  of  our  notions 
of  honor  and  virtue;  an  uncertainty  which  ^vill  ever  remain,  because 
they  change  with  the  revolutions  of  time,  and  names  survive  the  things 
they  originally  signified;  they  change  with  the  boundaries  of  states, 
which  are  often  the  same  both  in  physical  and  moral  geography. — 
Beccaria,  "Crimes  and  Punishments,"  Fourth  Ed.,  1775. 

Cornutus  [informed  against  by  one  of  the  spies  of  Tiberius]  having 
put  an  end  to  his  own  fife — believing  as  he  did  that  prosecution  was  a 
prelude  to  destruction — a  motion  was  made  in  the  senate  that  whenever 
the  person  accused  of  high  treason  prevented  judgment  by  a  voluntary 


1»6  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

death,  the  informers  should  be  entitled  to  no  reward.  The  fathers  in- 
cUned  to  the  opinion;  but  Tiberius,  in  plain  terms,  without  his  usual 
ambiguity,  shewed  himself  the  patron  of  the  whole  tribe  of  informers. 
"  The  course  of  justice,"  he  said,  "  would  be  stopt,  by  such  a  decision, 
and  the  commonwealth  be  brought  to  the  brink  of  ruin.  It  were  better 
to  abrogate  all  laws  at  once,  than  to  remove  the  vigilance  that  gives 
them  energy."  Thus  that  pernicious  crew,  the  bane  and  scourge  of 
society,  who,  in  fact,  have  never  been  sufficiently  restrained,  were  let 
loose,  with  the  wages  of  iniquity  in  view,  to  harass  and  destroy  their 
fellow  creatures. 

In  proportion  as  they  rose  in  guilt,  informers  became  sacred  charac- 
ters. If  any  were  punished,  it  was  only  such  as  were  mere  novices  in 
guilt,  obscure  and  petty  \'illains,  who  had  no  talents  for  mischief. — 
Tacitus. 

I  expect  to  see  the  day  when  schools  for  the  training  of  mothers  will 
be  the  chief  corner-stone  of  a  better  civiUzation  than  the  world  has  ever 
seen,  and  when  young  women  will  attend  these  schools  more  generally 
than  they  now  flock  to  the  cooking-schools  that  are  such  a  sign  of  promise 
in  the  land,  and  far  more  reverently  will  study  their  possibiUties  as  co- 
workers with  God  in  the  endowment  and  training  of  His  human  image. 
.  .  .  Grod  hasten  the  day  of  a  scientific  motherhood  that  will  build  into 
her  child  before  and  after  birth  the  beatitudes  of  wholesome  appetite! 
...  It  is  better  to  stir  a  question  without  deciding  it  than  to  decide  a 
question  without  stirring  it«  .  .  .  Innocence  may  be  founded  on  igno- 
rance, but  virtue  is  evermore  based  upon  knowledge.  ...  I  believe  that 
a  constant  evolution  is  going  forward  in  the  home  as  in  every  other  place, 
and  that  we  may  have  but  dimly  dreamed  the  good  in  store  for  those 
whom  Grod  for  holiest  love  hath  made.  .  .  .  Last  of  all,  and  chiefest, 
the  magnum  opus  of  Christianity,  and  Science,  which  is  its  handmaid, 
the  wife  will  have  undoubted  custody  of  herself,  and,  as  in  all  the  lower 
ranges  of  the  animal  creation,  she  will  determine  the  frequency  of  the 
investiture  of  life  with  form. — Frances  E.  Willard. 

We  know  of  no  [other]  spectacle  so  ridiculous  as  the  British  pubhc  in  one 
of  its  periodic  fits  of  morality.  In  general,  elopements,  divorces,  and  fam- 
ily quarrels  pass  with  little  notice.  We  read  the  scandal,  talk  about  it 
for  a  day,  and  forget  it.  But  once  in  six  or  seven  years  our  virtue  be- 
comes outrageous.  We  cannot  suffer  the  laws  of  reUgion  and  decency 
to  be  violated.  We  must  make  a  stand  against  vice.  We  must  te^ch 
libertines  that  the  English  people  appreciate  the  importance  of  domestic 
ties.  Accordingly  some  unfortunate  man,  in  no  respect  more  depraved 
than  hundreds  whose  offenses  have  been  treated  with  lenity,  is  singled 
out  as  an  expiatory  sacrifice.     If  he  has  children,  they  are  to  be  taken 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES   OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         197 

from  him.  If  he  has  a  profession,  he  is  to  be  driven  from  it.  He  is  cut 
by  the  higher  orders  and  hissed  by  the  lower.  He  is,  in  truth,  a  sort  of 
"  whipping  boy,"  by  whose  vicarious  agonies  all  the  other  transgressors 
of  the  same  class  are,  it  is  supposed,  sufficiently  punished.  We  reflect 
very  complacently  on  our  own  severity,  and  compare  with  great  pride 
the  high  standards  of  morals  established  in  England  with  the  Parisian 
laxity.  At  length  our  anger  is  satiated.  Our  victim  is  ruined  and  heart- 
broken and  our  virtue  goes  gently  to  sleep  for  seven  years  more. — Lord 
Macaulay  in  his  review  of  Moore's  "  Life  of  Byron." 

Resolved,  That  we  protest  against  the  usurpation  of  governmental 
functions  by  private  detectives,  and  by  sectarian  societies  and  agencies, 
as  false  in  principle  and  antagonistic  to  orderly  government  by  the  people. 
That  the  increasing  frequency  of  such  usurpation  is  a  constant  menace 
to  our  government,  an  inevitable  cause  of  distrust  and  demoraUzation, 
and  a  natural  source  of  blackmailing  and  corruption. 

Resolved,  That  we  protest  against  all  laws  by  means  of  which  irre- 
sponsible private  societies  are  enabled  to  seize  upon  governmental  pow- 
ers, or  to  use  the  machinery  of  justice  for  the  furtherance  of  personal 
ends. 

Resolved,  We  insist  upon  a  return  to  fundamental  principles  of  Free- 
Speech,  Free-Press  and  Free-Mails,  and  an  adherence  to  constitutional 
guarantees  which  assure  those  rights  to  the  citizen,  and  we  demand  that 
the  laws  shall  be  enforced  only  by  the  duly  authorized  officers  of  the  peo- 
ple. 

Resolved,  In  view  of  the  mischievous  possibiUties  of  the  Comstock 
laws,  we  demand  that  they  be  repealed,  as  being  a  source  of  confusion 
in  the  administration  of  justice  and  a  practical  denial  of  constitutional 
rights. — ^American  Federation  of  Labor,  Albany,  January,  1894. 

Th»»  American  law  authorizing  a  post  office  official  to  decide  what  is 
and  what  is  not  obscene  literature,  places  an  arbitrary  authority  in  the 
hand  of  an  unknown  censor  which  would  not  be  tolerated  for  a  moment 
in  Great  Britain.*  The  Comstock  law,  as  it  is  called,  is  so  obviously 
capable  of  abuse  that  from  time  to  time  men  who  hold  the  faith  which 
Milton  held  in  the  liberty  of  the  press  have  protested  against  such  ab- 
solute power  being  lodged  in  the  hands  of  any  official.  If,  at  this  mo- 
ment, this  unknown  bureaucrat  were  to  decide  that  the  Song  of  Solomon 
and  Shakespeare's  poems  were  obscene,  anyone  who  sent  a  copy  of  the 
Bible  or  Shakespeare  through  the  post  would  be  Uable  to  be  sent  to  jail 
on  the  charge  of  using  the  mails  for  circulating  obscene  literature.  In 
a  recent  case  which  led  to  the  tragic  death  of  a  friend  of  my  own,  the 

*Yet  England  endures  a  known  Dramatic  Censor  with  like  inquisitorial  powers  and  like 
irresponsibility . 


198  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

judge  expressly  refused  lo  listen  to  any  evidence  as  to  the  morality  of 
the  book  in  question.  When  the  post  office,  he  ruled,  had  decided  that 
any  publication  was  obscene,  the  function  of  the  court  was  limited  to 
ascertaining  whether  or  not  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  send  that  book 
through  the  mails.  This  law  arms  a  post  office  official  with  absolute 
power  to  place  whatever  pubUcation  he  pleases  on  a  far  more  terrible 
Index  ExpurgcUorius  than  that  of  Rome.  Its  existence  in  a  free  country 
is  a  temporary  anomaly  and  an  intolerable  anachronism. — William  T. 
Stead  in  July,  1905,  Review  of  Reviews,  of  London. 

Suppose  a  print-seller,  with  a  view  to  business,  exposes  in  his  shop 
windows  a  number  of  objectionable  pictures,  for  the  attraction  of  those 
only  who  choose  to  look  at  them  and  possibly  buy  them.  I  have  occa- 
sion to  walk  through  the  street ;  am  I  a  party  ?  How  am  I  injured  ?  Is 
my  sense  of  decency  shocked  and  hurt  ?  But  if  this  is  sufficient  ground 
for  public  interference,  then  I  have  a  right  to  call  for  its  assistance  when 
ray  taste  is  hurt  and  shocked  by  a  piece  of  architecture  which  violates  the 
laws  of  high  art.  I  have  similar  grounds  of  complaint  when  a  speaker 
gets  up  in  a  public  place  and  preaches  doctrines  which  are  positively 
loathsome  to  me.  I  have  a  right  of  action  against  a  man  clothed  in 
dirty  rags,  or  with  pomaded  hair,  or  a  scented  pocket  handkerchief. 

If  you  reply  that  in  these  cases  my  hurt  is  not  painful  enough  to  justify 
any  interference  with  another's  freedom,  I  have  only  to  cite  the  old  and 
almost  forgotten  arguments  for  the  Inquisition.  The  possible  eternal 
damnation  of  my  children,  who  are  exposed  to  heretical  teaching,  is 
surely  a  sufficiently  painful  invasion  of  my  happiness  to  warrant  a  most 
strenuous  resistance.  And  even  to  modem  ears  it  will  seem  reasonable 
that  I  should  have  grounds  of  action  against  a  music-hall  proprietor  who 
should  offend  the  moral  sense  of  my  children  with  songs  of  a  pernicious 
character.  This  test  will  not  do.  .  .  .  No  man  has  ever  yet  succeeded 
in  defining  virtue  a  priori. — ^Wardsworth  Donisthorpe,  in  "  A  Plea  for 
Liberty." 

The  power  that  is  asked  for  [one  enlarging  the  postal  censorship]  is 
certain  to  be  abused.  We  remember  when  southern  postmasters  re- 
fused to  deliver  the  Tribune  to  subscribers,  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
"incendiary  matter."  Nobody  needs  to  be  told  that,  in  any  pohtical 
campaign,  every  political  party  having  control  of  the  post  offices  would 
use  its  power  to  hinder  the  other  party,  that  the  sacredness  of  private 
letters  would  be  subject  to  the  needs  of  partisans  and  the  whims  of  ig- 
norant or  rabid  postmasters.  An  inspected  mail-bag  is  the  sign  of  the 
vilest  despotism.  The  thing  became  so  vulgarly  shameless  in  Italy, 
that  travelers  were  unblushingly  told  that  the  office  had  not  yet  read  their 
letters !  .  .  .  The  evil  must  be  reached  in  other  ways.     Liberty  has  evils 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         199 

of  its  own,  but  liberty  is  worth  a  hundredfold  more  than  the  best  of  des- 
potisms. The  people  who  would  like  to  suppress  sin  by  main  force  be- 
lieve that  they  would  suppress  only  sin.  Pius  IX.  believed  that  he  sup- 
pressed only  sin  while  ruUng  the  most  vicious  and  ignorant  population 
in  the  Italian  Peninsula.  Despotism  may  mean  well  in  its  sources;  it 
becomes  wicked  and  corrupt  long  before  it  reaches  the  masses  under  it. 
You  must  meet  sin  chiefly  by  moral  and  reUgious  restraint;  a  Uttle  can 
be  done  by  a  free  country  through  its  laws,  and  that  Uttle  we  shall  always 
favor.  But  we  are  not  wilUng  to  sacrifice,  or  even  put  in  peril,  a  free 
correspondence  and  a  free  press  for  any  purpose  whatever. — New  York 
Methodist. 

I  have  conversed,  as  man  with  man,  with  medical  men  on  anatomical 
subjects,  and  compared  the  proportions  of  the  human  body  with  artists 
— ^yet  such  modesty  did  I  meet  with  that  I  was  never  reminded  by  word 
or  look  of  my  sex,  of  the  absurd  rules  which  make  modesty  a  pharisaical 
cloak  of  weakness.  And  I  am  persuaded  that  in  the  pursuit  of  knowl- 
edge, women  would  never  be  insulted  by  sensible  men,  and  rarely  by 
men  of  any  description,  if  they  did  not  by  mock  modesty  remind  them 
that  they  were  women;  actuated  by  the  same  spirit  as  the  Portuguese 
ladies  who  would  think  their  charms  insulted  if,  when  left  alone  with  a 
man,  he  did  not  at  least  attempt  to  be  grossly  famihar  with  their  persons. 
Men  are  not  always  men  in  the  company  of  women,  nor  would  women 
always  remember  that  they  were  women  if  they  were  allowed  to  acquire 
more  understanding.  As  a  sex,  women  are  more  chaste  than  men;  and 
as  modesty  is  the  effect  of  chastity,  they  may  deserve  to  have  this  virtue 
ascribed  to  them  in  rather  an  appropriate  sense ;  yet  I  must  be  allowed 
to  add  a  hesitating  if,  for  I  doubt  whether  chastity  will  produce  modesty, 
though  it  may  propriety  of  conduct,  when  it  is  merely  a  respect  for  the 
opinion  of  the  world,  and  when  coquetry  and  love-lorn  tales  of  novelists 
employ  the  thoughts.  Nay,  from  experience  and  reason,  I  should  be 
led  to  expect  to  meet  with  more  modesty  among  men  than  women, 
simply  because  men  exercise  their  understandings  more  than  women. — 
Mary  Wollstonecraft. 

All  of  these  Comstock  laws,  from  1872-3  down,  were  and  are  of  theo- 
logical inspiration  and  origin.  In  their  first  draft  and  intent  they  in- 
cluded "  blasphemy "  and  freethought  as  well  as  obscenity  and  immor- 
ality. Only  the  latter  two  words  were  afterwards  found  to  be  necessary, 
for  by  making  their  meanings  elastic  they  would  cover  all  that  was  neces- 
sary to  secure  the  censorship  and  control  of  the  people's  literature,  and 
so  of  their  thoughts,  feelings,  and  conduct.  In  a  word,  it  is  the  revival 
of  the  Inquisition  in  purpose  and  method  in  our  secular  repubUc,  by  a 
theological  usurpation  of  the  federal  government.     In  morals,  for  in- 


200  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

stance,  we  have  this  inevitable  discussion  of  sex  relation  and  affairs 
which  to  the  old  cast-iron  intellect  and  conscience  of  that  theology  is 
simply  an  impudent  "  obscenity."  There  they  would  compel  and  have 
simply  authority,  obedience,  ignorance,  and  silence,  presided  over  by 
doctor  and  priest,  with  Mr.  Comstock  and  the  federal  courts  to  drive 
to  prison  or  suicide  all  recalcitrants,  to  the  tune  of  "obey"  and  "no 
divorce!"  Ignorance,  fraud,  and  cruelty  are  the  results  of  this  usurpa- 
tion. People  cannot  and  will  not  consult  doctors  or  priests  for  necessary 
truth  even  if  they  could  afford  it — which  they  cannot.  The  communi- 
cation of  such  truth  and  knowledge  by  frint  is  a  public  necessity.  What 
a  fraud  and  a  shame  to  call  such  literature  "  obscene"  and  its  authors 
"criminals"!  And  the  murderous  cruelty  of  all  this  is  ours,  unless  we 
protest  and  do  all  we  possibly  can  to  bring  it  to  an  end. — Thaddeus  B. 
Wakeman. 

Professor  C.  W.  Malchow,  of  Hamline  University,  Minneapolis,  has 
put  forth  a  book  on  "  The  Sexual  Life,"  but  this  has  caused  liim  to  be  con- 
victed in  a  United  States  Court  on  the  charge  of  obscenity,  and  so  arises 
the  immediate  necessity  of  a  protest  from  every  member  of  the  profession 
and  all  schools,  a  protest  against  such  ignorant  meddling  with  a  phy- 
sician's rights,  in  his  best  effort  to  perform  one  of  his  duties.  A  physi- 
cian who  finds  a  good  thing  or  a  new  idea  is  expected  to  share  it  with  his 
brethren,  and  for  this  a  free  medical  press  is  absolutely  necessary.  Fur- 
thermore, it  is  absurd  in  the  highest  degree  to  hold  a  medical  writer 
down  to  the  plane  of  what  boys  and  girls  may  read,  as  some  courts  seem 
disposed  to  do.  To  the  judge  who  so  decrees,  the  physician  may  well 
retort:  "Very  well,  your  Honor,  the  next  time  you  have  occasion  to  visit 
me  or  some  other  physician,  for  advice  on  a  private  matter  (hemorrhoids, 
maybe),  I  will  dechne  to  do  anything  for  you  that  may  not  properly  be 
done  in  the  presence  of  my  boy  and  girl."  Extremely  ridiculous,  of 
course,  but  not  a  whit  more  so  than  for  a  judge  to  tell  us  medical  men  that 
we  must  write  and  print  only  what  will  do  for  kindergarten,  primary,  and 
lower  class  grades  of  scholarship.  It  simply  cannot  be  that  medical 
literature  is  to  be  censored  on  this  basis,  and  the  proper  stand  for  the  pro- 
fession to  take  is  to  demand  free  press  in  sexology  for  text  books  addressed 
to  medical  men,  and  also  a  large  amount  of  liberty,  broadmindedness, 
and  discretion,  even  some  special  privileges,  for  such  instruction  as  med- 
ical minds  find  necessary  for  their  clients,  adult  and  immature. — E.  B. 
Foote,  Jr.,  M.D.,  in  The  Eclectic  Review,  July,  1905. 

The  professional  or  amateur  "  detective  "  who  accepts  or  assumes  the 
"duty"  of  mixing  with  his  fellow  men  in  disguise  (moral or  physical),  of 
living  the  life  of  a  sneak,  for  the  purpose  of  securely  plaving  the  spy  upon 
others — who  will  tempt  twenty  in  order  to  beguile  the  weakest  of  the 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION        2oi 

number  into  wrong-doing,  is  not  only  more  odious,  but  more  guilty,  than 
the  victim  he  entraps  and  betrays.  A  state  among  whose  trusted  serv- 
ants are  the  mouchurd,  the  sbirro,  or  the  police  spy,  is  slowly  but  surely 
cutting  its  own  throat.  When  the  representatives  of  law  are  the  patented 
and  secure  law-breakers — when  the  representatives  of  order  are  the 
contrivers  of  disorder  for  the  purpose  of  quelling  it  by  brute  force,  they 
do  but  sow  the  wind  to  reap  the  whirlwind  by  which  they  and  their 
masters  will  ultimately  be  swept  away.  .  .  .  Happily  for  mankind, 
however,  not  even  the  priesthoods  are  eternal  or  infaUible  in  their  mis- 
chief. The  present  self-ordained  ones  are  somewhat  more  fallible  than 
past  specimens  which  progress  has  left  standing  in  the  desert;  and  hu- 
manity, though  disturbed  at  times  by  the  clamor  of  those  phantoms  of 
the  past,  who  unwilhng  to  be  left  behind  feign  to  belong  to  the  march, 
and  even  strive  to  direct  its  course,  will  quickly  perceive  the  daylight 
shining  through  their  fleshless  forms,  smile  at  them  and  pass  on.  Un- 
happily, however,  the  rotten  altar,  to  the  outward  seeming,  is  still  stand- 
ing, and  the  victims  chastized  upon  that  altar  suffer  none  the  less  for 
being  sacrificed  in  the  name  of  a  fiction;  for  this  reason  only,  it  is  well 
that  we  should  harken  to  the  words  of  the  chants  intoned  by  its  high 
priests, — Personal  Rights  Journal  of  London,  1889. 

As  a  partisan  of  individual  liberty,  I  am  not  offering  an  opinion  whether 
marriage  as  at  present  enforced  is  right  or  not,  whether  it  should  be  more 
free,  whether  divorce  should  be  easier  or  not ;  but  as  an  individualist,  what 
I  am  striving  for  is  that  those  who  do  not  beheve  in  marriage  should  have 
the  same  liberty  [of  discussion]  as  those  who  do.  .  .  . 

So  there  are  a  number  of  obsolete  laws  on  the  statute  books  sufficient 
to  hang  us  all,  which,  however,  are  kept  in  abeyance  till  some  individual 
or  party  peculiarly  unpopular  is  required  to  be  put  down,  when  they  are 
thrust  upon  us  to  every  one's  surprise.  Thus  Trafalgar  Square  was  a 
place  for  public  meetings  for  years,  but  when  the  Socialists  wished  to 
meet  there  the  most  astonishing  restrictive  laws  were  refurbished.  So 
after  certain  things  have  long  been  allowed,  some  luckless  individual, 
perhaps  a  suspect  of  one  of  the  spy  societies,  is  pounced  upon.  All  manner 
of  blasphemy  has  been  written  and  spoken  freely,  but  suddenly  the  editor 
of  the  Freethinker  [of  London]  is  made  a  scapegoat.  All  sorts  of 
meetings  have  been  held  on  Sunday  with  payment  at  the  doors,  but  if 
SpirituaUsts,  Socialists,  or  any  other  unpopular  party  were  to  begin  them, 
probably  they  would  be  summoned.  So  we  have  an  index  expurga- 
torius  in  literature  extending  even  to  our  public  libraries.  .  .  . 

A  religious  man  is  not  supporting  Spiritualism  or  Atheism  because  he 
would  give  the  SpirituaHst  and  Atheist  the  liberty  he  himself  enjoys. 
Nor  is  the  man  of  strict  moral  principles  supporting  vice  if  he  attacks 
the  law  wliich  tries  to  put  it  down.     All  he  means  is  this — I  abhor  vice. 


202  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

but  I  believe  your  interference  makes  these  things  worse. — ^A.  F.  Tindall. 

On  the  other  hand,  books  written  from  an  entirely  different  motive 
have  been  classed  as  immoral,  and  it  would  be  safe  to  hazard  the  asser- 
tion that  there  are  few  great  works  of  literature  that  have  not  been  de- 
nounced as  immoral.  The  word  "  morals  "  comes  from  the  Latin  word 
"  mores,"  a  word  which  means  customs.  The  morals  of  a  community, 
when  we  reduce  the  word  to  lowest  terms,  are  the  customs  of  the  commu- 
nity. Now,  when  a  man  attacks  the  customs  of  a  community  he  may 
be  called  immoral.  The  book  that  attacks  the  customs  of  a  community 
may  be  called  immoral.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  the  attack  upon 
these  customs  is  due  to  any  evil  intent  on  the  part  of  the  author.  On 
the  contrary,  his  motive  may  be  of  the  highest,  his  protest  against  the 
customs  or  morals  of  the  community  being  based  on  what  appears  to 
him  a  higher  conception  of  morals  than  the  one  that  now  obtains  credence. 
This  is  probably  the  case  with  Bernard  Shaw.  We  are  not  saying  that 
he  is  in  the  right,  but  all  of  his  antecedents  are  testimony  thai  his  work 
is  not  intended  to  appeal  to  the  depraved  in  man,  but  is  intended  to  start 
a  higher  current  of  feeling  than  that  which  prevails  to-day.  .  .  . 

The  human  race  must  acquire  "the  philosophic  mind"  that  Words- 
worth tells  us  comes  with  the  years.  With  a  philosophic  mind,  Bernard 
Shaw  and  all  other  writers  with  new  ideas  would  be  quite  safe.  The 
great  works  of  literature  could  then  be  read  with  profit  and  their  "  im- 
morality" would  be  the  antechamber  to  a  higher  morality.  As  it  is, 
books  once  pronounced  immoral  have  a  striking  habit  of  becoming 
moral  in  time,  while  the  sinner  of  yesterday  is  the  saint  of  to-day. — 
Denver  Re-puhlican. 

After  all,  we  are  not  very  wise  in  deaUng  with  obscure  but  vital  ques- 
tions that  underlie  the  very  foundations  of  civilized  society  and  affect 
the  spiritual  and  moral  health  of  the  race.  We  wrangle  in  public  over 
the  responsibility  of  the  law  and  its  ministers  for  the  disasters  that  over- 
take uncared-for  youth  in  the  congested  and  vitiated  life  of  cities.  Then 
we  shrink  in  private  from  the  frank  warning  and  careful  guidance  of 
ignorant  children  and  the  social  education  of  parents  almost  as  ignorant. 
We  lament  the  domestic  unhappiness  that  fills  the  divorce  courts  with 
wrecks  of  families.  We  deplore  the  errors  of  hot  young  blood  that 
wreck  so  much  raw  material  for  families  before  it  reaches  the  supreme 
fulfilment  of  nature's  purpose  in  marriage.  But  we  send  authors  and 
publishers  to  the  penitentiary  when  they  try  to  popularize  in  this  country 
some  of  the  scientific  knowledge  of  the  laws  and  conditions  of  vitality 
which  European  experience  and  investigation  have  gathered  into  works 
of  supreme  utility.  We  pour  out  money  like  water  to  endow  colleges 
and  universities  to  teach  everything  under  the  sun  from  Sanscrit  to  mak- 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION        20S 

ing  mud  pies,  excepting  the  knowledge  of  the  laws  and  conditions  of 
that  upon  which  the  vitality  and  perpetuity  of  the  race  depend.  We 
teach  our  sons  and  daughters  everything  on  earth  except  how  to  be 
fathers  and  mothers.  We  shun  this  supreme  subject  like  the  plague. 
We  crucify  those  who  would  enlighten  the  ignorance  of  the  mature  and 
shield  the  innocence  of  the  young.  We  drive  our  sons  to  advertising 
harpies  to  be  poisoned  and  fleeced.  We  throw  our  daughters  into  the 
streets  with  less  protection  from  the  temptations  that  assail  youth  than 
we  give  our  domestic  cattle. — ^The  Minneapohs  Tribune. 

There  is  a  storj-  in  Pausanias  of  a  plot  for  betraying  a  city,  discovered 
by  the  braying  of  an  ass;  the  cackling  of  geese  saved  the  capital;  and 
Cataline  's  conspiracy  was  discovered  by  a  whore.  These  are  the  only 
three  animals,  as  far  as  I  remember,  famous  in  histor}'  as  evidences  and 
informers.  .  .  . 

Diligent  inquiries  into  remote  and  problematical  guilt,  with  new  power 
of  enforcing  them  by  chains  and  dungeons,  to  [against]  every  person 
whose  face  a  minister  thinks  fit  to  dislike,  are  not  only  opposite  to  that 
maxim,  which  declareth  it  better  that  ten  guilty  men  should  escape,  than 
one  innocent  suffer;  but  likewise  leave  a  gate  wide  open  to  the  whole 
tribe  of  informers,  the  most  accursed,  and  prostitute,  and  abandoned 
race,  that  God  ever  permitted  to  plague  mankind. 

However  orthodox  my  sentiments  may  be  while  I  am  now  writing, 
[those  very  sentiments]  may  become  criminal  enough  to  bring  me  into 
trouble  before  midsummer.  And  indeed,  I  have  often  wished,  for  some 
time  past,  that  a  political  catechism  might  be  published  by  authority 
four  times  a  year,  in  order  to  instruct  us  how  we  are  to  speak,  write,  and 
act,  during  the  current  quarter.  I  have  by  experience  felt  the  want  of 
such  an  instructor.  .  .  . 

I  number  among  false  witnesses  all  those  who  make  a  trade  of  being 
informers  in  hope  of  favour  and  reward;  and  to  this  end  employ  their 
time,  either  by  listening  in  public  places  to  catch  up  an  accidental  word; 
or  in  corrupting  men's  servants  to  discover  any  unwary  expression  of 
their  master;  or  thrusting  themselves  into  company,  and  then  using 
the  most  indecent,  scurrilous  language;  fastening  a  thousand  falsehoods 
and  scandals  upon  a  whole  party,  on  purpose  to  provoke  such  an  answer 
as  they  may  turn  to  an  accusation.  ...  A  man  who  is  capable  of  so  infa- 
mous a  calling  as  that  of  a  spy  is  not  very  much  to  be  relied  upon. — Swift. 

Official  censorship  is  quite  apt  to  change  a  normal  desire  for  proper 
information  into  unhealthy  curiosity  and  in  that  and  other  ways  do 
more  harm  than  good.  The  most  successful  way  to  fight  an  evil  is 
to  put  good  in  its  place.  For  example,  decent  entertainments  have 
cleaned  up  Coney  Island.  They  have  succeeded  where  laws  and 
police  and  punishment  had  failed. 


204  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Familiarity  with  the  appearance  of  the  healthy  human  body  should 
be  encouraged,  instead  of  practically  forbidden,  as  now.  No  material 
structure  is  more  worthy  of  general  study  and  admiration.  If  well 
selected  pictures  and  statues  of  the  best  human  figures  could  be  put  in 
our  school-houses  and  children  be  led  by  their  teachers  to  look  upon 
and  think  of  them  in  the  right  way,  contaminating  influences  would 
have  much  less  chance  of  doing  harm  than  is  now  the  case. 

I  firmly  believe  that  the  successful  moral  reform  of  the  future  will 
come  along  that  line.  For  the  present,  we  have  a  general  system  of 
indiscriminate  repression  and  suppression,  which  is  occasionally  brought 
to  public  notice  by  some  sensational  performance  of  Comstock's. 

This  system  is  professedly  for  the  protection  of  children  and  the 
purity  of  the  home;  but  its  natural  and  common  result  is  to  poison 
the  very  fountains  of  Ufe. 

Competent  physicians  tell  us  that  there  is  widespread  physical  and 
moral  suffering  resulting  from  the  present  policy  of  preventing  sex 
knowledge  being  acquired  in  a  legitimate  and  healthful  way.  To  say 
that  the  people  can  go  to  the  doctor  does  not  meet  the  case.  They 
will  not  go  until  after  the  harm  has  been  done. 

The  modern  way  of  getting  information  is  from  the  printed  and 
pictured  page.  The  use  of  this  for  the  benefit  of  the  general  public 
is  now  debarred  in  the  very  field  of  all  others  where  correct  and  timely 
information,  widely  diffused,  is  of  transcendent  importance. 

How  long  will  a  sensible  people  allow  this  to  continue  ?  Henry  Smith, 
Prof,  of  American  History  in  Yale,  in  New  York  Sun,  Aug.  8,  1906. 

We  do  not  approve  of  making  a  feature  of  discussion  and  investiga- 
tion of  the  sexual  relations.  We  fully  grant  their  importance  and  the 
need  of  their  study.  Men  and  women  are  cursing  the  day  they  were 
bom,  are  fighting,  going  insane,  driving  others  insane,  making  them- 
selves devils  and  earth  a  hell,  all  for  want  of  the  knowledge  that  can 
come  only  from  a  free  and  untrammeled  discussion  of  sexual  physi- 
ology and  pathology,  by  those  who  are  competent.  But  this  is  exactly 
what  is  not  to  be  had  under  present  conditions.  No  such  discussion 
is  possible  in  any  publication  that  circulates  by  post  to  a  general  public; 
hence  any  attempt  in  that  direction  is  sure  to  be  futile.  It  is  not  that 
the  attempt  to  carr}^  it  on  will  surely  bring  trouble — to  a  man  of  the 
stuff  before  us  martyrdom  holds  out  allurements  not  to  be  resisted — 
it  is  because  of  certain  failure  and  wasted  efforts  sadly  needed  in  direc- 
tions where  success  is  possible.  Our  objection  is  not  prudent  cow- 
ardice but  calculating  utilitarianism. 

There  is  this  to  be  said  about  discussions  of  sexual  matters.  As 
one  goes  further  into  the  topic,   his  viewpoint  alters.     The  limits  he 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES   OF  SEX-DISCUSSION        205 

&st  set  to  what  is  permissible  in  the  discussion  recede,  until  things 
appear  as  a  matter  of  course  that  at  first  he  would  unhesitatingly  have 
denounced  as  obscene.  Then  he  is  called  to  face  a  charge  that  is  in 
itself  a  disgrace.  And  we  sympathize  with  a  friend  who  asked  for 
vaccination  because  he  preferred  to  "die  of  a  clean  disease."  Once 
there  was  a  soldier,  noted  throughout  his  division  for  his  many  heroic 
exploits.  Time  and  again  he  braved  and  escaped  dangers  that  daunted 
the  boldest,  but  he  seemed  ever  to  hold  a  charmed  life.  At  last  he  was 
tremendously  kicked  by  a  big  mule,  and  this  time  death  was  inevitable. 
When  informed  of  his  fate,  to  the  amazement  of  all  he  burst  into  tears. 
Seeing  the  contempt  on  his  comrades'  faces,  he  exclaimed:  "It's  not 
that,  boys;  not  that  I  am  afraid  to  die;  but  after  all  the  high  and  mighty 
chances  of  dying  I've  had,  to  be  kicked  to  death  by  an  infernal,  long- 
eared  heehawing  son  of  a  j s!"     Same  as  to  Comstock! — Prof. 

William  F.  Waugh,  American  Journal  of  Clinical  Medicine,  May,  1907. 

It  is  hardly  possible  that  a  society  for  the  suppression  of  vice  can  ever 
be  kept  within  the  bounds  of  good  sense  and  moderation.  If  there  are 
many  members  who  have  really  become  so  from  a  feeUng  of  duty,  there 
will  necessarily  be  some  who  enter  the  society  to  hide  a  bad  character, 
and  others  whose  object  is  to  recommend  themselves  to  their  betters  by 
a  sedulous  and  bustling  inquisition  into  the  immoralities  of  the  public. 
The  loudest  and  noisest  suppressors  will  always  carry  it  against  the  more 
prudent  part  of  the  community;  the  most  violent  will  be  considered  as 
the  most  moral,  and  those  who  see  the  absurdity  will,  from  the  fear  of 
being  thought  to  encourage  vice,  be  reluctant  to  oppose  it.  .  .  .  Begin- 
ning with  the  best  intentions  in  the  world,  such  societies  must,  in  all 
probabiUty,  degenerate  into  a  receptacle  for  every  species  of  tittle-tattle, 
impertinence,  and  malice.  Men  whose  trade  is  rat-catching,  love  to 
catch  rats.  The  bug  destroyer  seizes  on  his  bug  with  dehght ;  and  the 
suppressor  is  gratified  by  finding  his  vice.  The  last  soon  becomes  a 
mere  tradesman  like  the  others;  none  of  them  moralize  or  lament  that 
their  respective  evils  should  exist  in  the  world.  The  pubUc  feeling  is 
swallowed  up  in  the  pursuit  of  a  daily  occupation  and  in  the  display  of 
a  technical  skill.  An  informer,  whether  paid  by  the  week,  like  the  agents 
of  this  society,  or  by  the  crime,  as  in  common  cases,  is  in  general  a  man 
of  very  indifferent  character.  So  much  fraud  and  deception  are  neces- 
sary for  carrying  on  his  trade — it  is  odious  to  his  fellow  subjects — that 
no  man  of  respectabiUty  will  ever  undertake  it.  It  is  evidently  impossi- 
ble to  make  such  a  character  otherwise  than  odious.  A  man  who  re- 
ceives weekly  pay  for  prying  into  the  transgressions  of  mankind  and 
brinoing  them  to  consequent  punishment,  will  always  be  hated  by  man- 
kind, and  the  office  must  fall  to  the  lot  of  some  man  of  desperate  fortunes 
and  ambiguous  character.     If  it  be  lawful  for  respectable  men  to  com- 


206  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

bine  for  the  purpose  of  turning  informers,  it  is  lawful  for  the  most  de- 
spicable race  of  informers  to  do  the  same  thing;  and  then  it  is  quite 
clear  that  every  species  of  wickedness  and  extortion  would  be  the  con- 
sequence.— Rev.  Sidney  Smith. 

At  the  public  meeting  of  the  New  York  Society  for  the  Suppression 
of  Vice,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Duryea,  of  Brooklyn,  plead  earnestly  for  the  proper 
education  of  the  young  in  the  knowledge  of  their  own  bodies  and  of  all 
their  functions;  and  since  his  speech  was  extemporaneous  and  not  re- 
ported elsewhere,  we  were  obliged  by  the  following  quotations  to  snatch 
from  irretrievable  loss  these  few  good  points  by  the  aid  of  the  phono- 
graphic art :  "  There  is  no  reason  for  hesitation  or  shame  in  the  presence 
of  truth.  All  that  has  ever  caused  a  blush  has  been  the  destruction  of 
truth,  in  the  form  of  error,  and  the  corruption  of  that  which  is  natural, 
in  the  form  of  vice.  I  believe  that  God  in  his  purity  conceived  the  human 
form;  God  in  his  spotlessness  devised  the  sexual  organs;  God  in  his 
holiness  infused  life  in  the  sexual  power,  and  God  in  his  glory  linked 
man  with  woman.  I  am  not  ashamed  of  what  God  has  put  in  me.  I 
will  never  blush  for  any  power  with  which  he  has  invested  me.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  father  should  teach  the  son  his  whole  nature,  that  he  should 
describe  the  use  of  all  the  organs,  and  tell  the  compensations,  social  and 
mental,  of  the  fulfilment  of  duty,  and  the  ruin  of  abuse  and  perversion. 
I  believe  that  the  mother,  in  the  atmosphere  which  a  mother  can  throw 
around  her  daughter,  could  open  the  mind  at  a  proper  age  to  the  nature 
of  herself,  her  powers,  and  future  relations.  If  God  made  our  chiidren 
as  they  are,  we  ought  not  to  be  ashamed  to  tell  them  how  they  are  made 
and  for  what.  .  .  .  You  think  to  keep  your  children  pure  and  innocent 
by  keeping  them  ignorant,  but  this  society  has  told  you  you  cannot  keep 
them  ignorant  if  you  try.  The  devil  will  inform  them,  if  you  do  not. 
He  will  not  give  them  the  truth  in  pure  light,  but  in  light  that  has  passed 
through  a  medium  of  his  own  device." 

There  is  the  very  widest  distinction  to  be  made  between  writings  in- 
tended to  debauch  the  mind  and  incite  vice  and  those  intended  to  pro- 
duce the  opposite  results  by  the  dissemination  of  knowledge  and  of  sound 
ideas  regarding  the  sexual  nature.  Classing  the  two  together  is  a  mon- 
strous misjudgment.  The  suppression  of  any  sober,  candid  discussion 
of  questions  that  concern  the  Avell-being  of  society  is  not  only  a  mistake 
as  a  matter  of  policy,  but  it  abridges  the  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the 
press  which  is  guaranteed  by  the  constitution  of  the  country. — Beecher's 
Christian  Union,  June  28,  1876. 

If  "the  proper  study  of  mankind  is  man,"  the  first  study  of  men  and 
women — aye,  of  boys  and  girls — should  be  subjective  as  to  body  and 
mind.     The  human  temple  should  be  held  sacred,  and  the  best  way  to 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION        207 

keep  it  holy  is  to  keep  it  wholesome — to  strive  always  for  the  "  mens 
sans  in  sano  corpore."     In  order  that  this  may  be  accomplished,  there 
must  be  knowledge.     No  form  of  useful  knowledge  should  be  "  forbid- 
den fruit" — the  study  of  no  part  of  the  human  machine  tabooed.     The 
Times  has  remarked  more  than  once  upon  the  unwisdom  of  parents  who 
fail  to  instruct  their  sons  and  daughters  in  the  functions  of  their  bodies; 
has  discoursed  more  than  once  upon  the  ignorance  that  leads  to  the  ruin 
of  both  body  and  soul.     It  is  the  ignorance  of  prudery,  of  mawkish 
modesty,  which  in  truth  is  the  antithesis  of  modesty.     If  every  boy  and 
girl  were  instructed  at  home  in  the  elements  of  physiology — if  the  mys- 
teries of  the  sacred  temple  were  reverently  revealed,  there  would  be  less 
of  the  hellish  crime  that  has  startled  this  city  in  the  last  fortnight.     The 
race  would  be  stronger,  saner  and  happier  if  "man,  know  thyself,"  were 
the  motto  of  all  parents  and  the  precept  set  before  all  youth.     Yet  in 
this  twentieth  century,  when  human  enlightenment  in  all  matters  is 
supposed  to  be  advancing  with  strides  greater  and  more  rapid  than  ever 
before,  a  Minnesota  jury  in  a  federal  court  has  found  a  physician,  Dr. 
Malchow,  and  his  publisher  guilty  of  sending  obscene  matter  through 
the  mails  and  the  judge  of  that  court  has  sentenced  the  man  to  the  state 
prison  for  a  year  and  a  half  because  the  one  wrote  and  the  other  printed 
a  book  discussing  in  a  scientific  way  the  most  important  functions  of  the 
body.     Was  ever  Russian  censorship  or  barbaric  suppression  of  printed 
speech  exercised  in  a  more  hateful  way?     We  are  told,  forsooth,  that 
the  book  is  sold  to  the  laity  and  is  therefore  a  harmful  and  unlawful  pub- 
lication— that  the  public  should  go  to  the  physicians  for  such  informa- 
tion as  that  work  contains.     Should  we  not  then  be  commanded,  with 
equally  sound  logic,  to  go  to  the  doctor  instead  of  the  library  when  we 
would  learn  something  about  the  construction  and  uses  of  the  eyes,  the 
ears,  the  liver,  the  stomach,  the  lungs  or  the  heart  ?    Should  we  not  visit 
the  astronomer  privately  in  his  study  when  we  seek  information  about 
the  wonders  of  the  stellar  and  the  planetary  systems?    Let  the  laws 
make  obscenity  dangerous  and  odious  by  all  means,  but  how  can  the 
courts  class  as  obscene  a  decently  and  truthfully  written  discussion  of 
facts  that  every  one  would  be  better  for  knowing  ?     No  wonder  physi- 
cians are  voicing  an  indignant  protest  at  the  verdict  and  sentence  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Malchow  and  Mr.  Burton. — ^The  Minneapolis  Tim^s. 

An  editorial  in  the  Manchester  (England)  Guardian  of  November  3, 
1905,  quotes  as  follows: 

"  A  man,  or  rather  a  demon  clothed  in  the  flesh  and  dressed  as  a  man, 
and  the  most  notorious  profaner  and  libertine  the  world  has  seen,  has 
been  so  impious  as  to  send  forth  from  his  diabolical  brain  a  play  now 
ready  to  be  shown  in  public  on  the  stage,  scoffing  at  the  whole  church. 
He  jeers  at  its  most  sacred  character  and  its  most  di^'ine  function  .  .  . 


«08  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

the  leading  and  directing  of  souls  and  families  by  wise  guides  and  holy 
conductors." 

This  is  not,  as  might  be  thought,  a  remark  passed  by  one  of  the  en- 
raged New  York  papers  on  Mr.  Bernard  Shaw's  play,  "  Mrs.  Warren's 
Profession."  It  was  said  by  one  of  the  equally  positive  critics  who  were 
equally  successful  in  getting  MoUere's  "Tartuffe"  prohibited  after  a 
single  performance  at  Paris  in  1664. 

"  My  comedy,"  Moliere  said  237  years  ago,  and  Mr.  Shaw  may  say  to- 
day, "  had  no  sooner  appeared  than  it  was  struck  as  with  a  thunderbolt 
by  a  power  that  should  command  respect."  In  both  cases  the  protest 
against  a  play  moral  beyond  the  common  run  of  plays  was  raised  in  the 
name  of  morality,  religion,  and  family  Ufe.  In  both  cases  point  is  given 
to  the  spectacle  by  the  toleration  which  the  enraged  persons  extend  at 
the  same  time  to  the  real  immoralities  of  the  contemporary  theater. 
Moliere  tells  a  little  story: 

"A  week  after  it  ['Tartuffe']  was  forbidden,  a  play  called  'Scara- 
mouche  Ermite'  was  acted  at  Court,  and  the  King,  as  he  left  the  theater, 
said  to  the  Prince  [Conde]  :*  I  should  like  to  know  why  the  people  who  are 
so  greatly  scandalized  at  Moliere's  comedy  say  nothing  about "  Scara- 
mouche.'"  The  Prince  answered :  '  The  reason  is  that  "  Scaramouche" 
laughs  at  heaven  and  at  religion,  about  which  these  gentlemen  care 
nothing,  and  that  Moliere's  comedy  laughs  at  the  men  themselves,  and 
this  they  will  not  tolerate.'" 

If  you  look,  another  day,  you  will  see  many  of  those  who  find  the  work 
of  Mr.  Shaw  "immoral"  smacking  their  lips  at  the  lubricities  of  some 
winking  and  leering  "  musical  comedy,"  or  tittering  at  some  indecent 
tit-bit  of  music  hall  innuendo  or  pantomime  gag.  What  they  dread  is 
the  advent  of  a  dramatic  revival  that  would  make  men's  stomachs  turn 
at  entering  this  reeking  under-world  of  the  theater  of  to-day. — The  Public. 

The  action  of  this  lawyer  [Oliver  Stevens,  prosecuting  attorney, 
who,  in  Boston,  suppressed  Whitman's  "  Leaves  of  Grass,"]  constitutes 
a  reef  which  threatens  with  shipwreck  every  great  book  of  every  great 
author,  from  Aristophanes  to  Moliere,  from  Eschylus  to  Victor  Hugo; 
and  the  drop  of  blood  that  is  calm  in  view  of  such  an  outrage  proclaims 
us  bastard  to  the  lineage  of  the  learned  and  the  brave.  To-day  Oliver 
Stevens  has  become  the  peril  of  Shakespeare.  He  knows  well,  no  one 
knows  it  better,  that  under  his  construction  of  the  statues  neither  Shak- 
speare  nor  the  Bible  could  be  circulated,  and  no  one  knows  better  than 
he  that  neither  of  these  books  is  obscene.  .  .  . 

Even  his  bolder  and  brassier  ally  in  this  holy  war — Mr.  Anthony 
Comstock — even  he  tempers  valor  with  discretion  for  the  nonce,  and 
says  he  "will  not  prosecute  the  publishers  of  the  classics  unless  they 
specially  advertise  them!"     There  are  contingencies,  it  seems,  in  which 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION        209 

the  great  works  of  the  human  mind  will  be  brought  under  the  operation 
of  "  the  statutes  against  obscene  literature."  Who  knows,  since  fortune 
favors  the  brave  and  enterprising,  but  that  they  may  yet,  step  by  step, 
succeed  in  bringing  the  fourteenth  century  into  the  nineteenth,  and  re- 
erect  Montfaucon — that  hideous  edifice  of  scaffolds  reared  by  Philippe 
le  Bel,  where  the  blackened  corpse  of  Glanus  swung  beside  the  carcase 
of  the  regicide,  for  having  translated  Plato,  and  where  Peter  Albin 
dangled  gibbeted  beside  the  robber,  for  having  published  Virgil!  If 
this  fond  prospect  is  still  somewhat  distant,  it  is  only,  it  seems,  because 
Mr.  Anthony  Comstock  lets  his  /  dare  not  wait  upon  /  would,  and  delays 
the  initial  step  until  the  classics  are  "specially"  advertised.  Mean- 
while Mr.  Oliver  Stevens  also  awaits  for  fresh  relays  of  courage,  and  yet 
ventures  to  attempt  only  to  crush  Walt.  Whitman.  For  that  act  of  daring 
he  shall  reap  the  full  harvest  of  reward.  .  .  . 

There  is  not  a  state  in  the  Union,  there  is  not  a  country  in  the  civilized 
world,  in  which  his  deed  shall  not  make  him  famous  forever.  I  pledge 
myself  to  attend  to  his  interests.  The  prosecutors  of  a  good  man's 
thought  are  precious  to  such  as  I,  and  we  should  indeed  be  recreant  to 
duty  if  we  failed  to  let  it  be  widely  known,  and  in  such  form  as  never  to 
be  forgotten,  that  Massachusetts  has  a  district  attorney,  named  Oliver 
Stevens,  true  to  the  blood  of  Mather,  faithful  to  the  darkest  traditions, 
who  wrenched  the  law  from  its  purpose  to  crush  and  extinguish  "  the 
most  extraordinary  piece  of  wit  and  wisdom  America  has  yet  contribu- 
ted"— the  sanest,  the  largest,  the  most  splendid  and  enduring  literary 
product  which  the  Celto-Saxon  race  has  given  the  age.  Let  his  fame 
console  him  even  in  the  sad  event  of  his  being  expelled  from  the  office 
Concord  and  Harvard  may  say  he  has  disgraced  and  polluted. — William 
Douglass  O'Connor,  in  the  New  York  Tribune. 

...  I  am  in  a  difficulty,  and  as  it  is  one  arising  out  of  a  question 
of  jurisprudence,  I  know  no  one  else  to  whom  I  can  apply  for  assistance, 
with  so  sure  a  hope  of  relief,  as  to  you. 

In  the  revision  of  my  criminal  code,  I  have  now  under  consideration 
the  chapter  of  oJBFenses  against  public  morals.  This  is  intended  to 
comprehend  all  that  class  which  the  English  jurists  have  vaguely  desig- 
nate! as  offenses  contra  bonos  mores,  finding  it  much  easier  in  this, 
as  they  do  in  may  other  cases,  to  give  a  Latin  phrase,  which  may  mean 
anything,  rather  than  a  definition. 

I  have  serious  thoughts  of  omitting  it  altogether,  and  leaving  the 
whole  class  of  indecencies  to  the  correction  of  public  opinion.  I  have 
been  led  to  this  inclination  of  mind  (for  as  yet  I  have  formed  no  deci- 
sion) from  the  examination  of  the  particular  acts  which  in  practise  have 
been  brought  under  the  purview  of  this  branch  of  criminal  jurispru- 
dence. -1 


210  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

In  the  absence  of  anything  like  principle  or  definition,  I  was  obMged 
to  have  recourse  not  only  to  precedent,  but  to  the  books  of  precedents; 
and  they  strongly  reminded  me  of  some  forms  which  I  have  seen  in 
Catholic  church  books,  of  questions  which  are  to  be  put  to  the  peni- 
tent by  the  professor,  in  which  every  abomination  that  could  enter  into 
the  imagination  of  a  monk  is  detailed,  in  order  to  keep  the  mind  of  a 
girl  of  fifteen  free  from  pollution! 

Turn  to  any  indictment  of  this  kind  in  the  books,  for  the  publication 
of  obscene  books  or  prints,  or  for  indecency  of  behavior,  and  you  will 
find  the  innuendoes  and  exposition  of  the  offense  infinitely  more  inde- 
corous, more  open  violation  of  decency,  than  any  of  the  works  they  are 
intended  to  punish  and  repress. 

The  evidence  must  be  of  the  same  nature,  and  hundreds  will  hear 
the  trial  who  never  would  have  seen  the  book  or  print.  This  evil  is 
inevitable,  if  such  acts  are  punished  by  law. 

There  is  another  evil  of  no  less  magnitude,  arising  from  the  diffi- 
culty of  defining  the  offense. 

Use  the  general  expression  of  the  English  law,  and  a  fanatic  judge, 
with  a  like-minded  jury,  will  bring  every  harmless  levity  under  the 
lash  of  the  law. 

Sculpture  and  painting  will  be  banished  for  their  nudities;  poetry 
for  the  warmth  of  its  its  descriptions ;  and  music,  if  it  excite  any  for- 
bidden passion,  will  scarcely  escape. 

On  the  whole,  I  am  surrounded  by  difficulties.  Help  me  to  a  defini- 
tion that  shall  include  what  ought  to  be  punished,  and  not  give  room 
for  the  abuse  I  have  pointed  out. 

Let  me  know  how  I  shall  decently  accuse  and  try  a  man  for  indecency; 
or  else  fortify  me  in  my  opinion  of  letting  public  opinion  protect  public 
morals. — Letter  of  Hon.  Edw.  Livingston,  Secretary  of  State  under 
President  Jackson,  to  Duponceau,  a  famous  lawyer  of  Philadelphia. 
"Life  of  Edw.  Livingston,"  by  Charles  Havens  Hunt,  page  289,  New 
York,  1S64. 


THE   CASE   OF   MOSES   HARMAN 

No  doubt  the  postal  authorities  think  they  are  doing  the  community 
a  service  in  trying  to  suppress  a  paper  that  advocates  objectionable 
doctrines.  We  agree  that  some  of  Lucifer's  doctrines  are  highly  objec- 
tionable; but  it  is  a  thousand  times  more  objectionable  that  the  right  of 
free  discussion  should  be  denied  to  any  opinions  however  erroneous. — 
Woman's  Journal,  of  Boston,  March  17,  1906. 

The  one  refuge  left  in  the  world  for  unbridled  license  is  the  married 
state.  That  is  the  shameful  explanation  of  the  fact  that  a  journal  has 
just  been  confiscated  and  its  editor  imprisoned  in  America  for  urging 
that  a  married  woman  should  be  protected  from  domestic  molestation 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         211 

when  childbearing.  Had  that  man  filled  his  paper  with  aphrodisiac 
pictures  and  aphrodisiac  stories  of  duly  engaged  couples,  he  would  now 
be  a  prosperous,  respected  citizen. — Geoi^e  B.  Shaw  in  New  York 
Times,  September  26,  1905. 

The  assault  on  the  freedom  of  the  press  and  of  the  mails,  involved  in 
the  persecution  of  Moses  Harman,  editor  of  Lucifer,  Chicago,  reached 
another  stage  on  March  1st,  when  Mr.  Harman  was  sent  to  the  peniten- 
tiary at  Joliet  to  serve  a  year's  imprisonment.  If  such  things  can  be 
done  under  the  shadow  of  the  American  eagle,  the  a?gis  of  the  constitu- 
tion, and  the  protection  of  the  Stars  and  Stripes,  why  does  our  department 
of  state  trouble  itself  about  tyranny  and  oppression  in  the  Old  World  ? — 
Truth  Seeker,  New  York,  1906. 

Have  these  obnoxious  laws  repealed.  It  is  not  Moses  Harman  alone, 
not  the  cause  of  woman's  freedom,  but  the  rights  of  humanity  that  are 
at  stake.  Free  speech,  freedom  of  the  press,  personal  freedom,  the 
rights  of  labor — all  are  involved.  This  is  not  a  struggle  alone  between 
Anthony  Comstock  and  Moses  Harman,  but  it  is  a  struggle  of  the  op- 
pressed class  against  the  ruling  class  for  the  right  to  life,  hberty.  and 
pursuit  of  happiness.  Material  interests  are  at  stake,  and  the  ruling 
class  is  wise  enough  to  understand  this  and  act  accordingly.  Let  the 
ruled  class  also  understand  and  act,  or  sink  into  greater  slavery. — May 
Walden  Kerr,  in  the  Chicago  Socialist. 

Even  if  I  disagreed  entirely  with  the  sentiment  of  Lucijer  and  its 
editor,  I  should  feel  it  a  duty  to  stand  up  for  the  rights  of  free  speech. 
But  believing  as  I  do  not  only  in  the  purity  of  thought  and  high  purpose 
of  Mr.  Harman,  but  convinced  of  the  shamefulness  of  the  treatment 
accorded  him,  officially  or  otherwise,  I  shall  be  glad  to  have  my  protest 
recorded.  There  is  nothing  too  sacred  for  serious  discussion,  and  when 
questions  relating  to  the  sexes  are  treated  with  conviction  and  plain 
speech  it  is  usually  "  lewd  fellows  of  the  baser  sort "  who  throw  up  their 
hands  in  holy  horror.  I  shall  be  glad  to  receive  and  read  the  paper: — 
William  Lloyd  Garrison,  Lexington,  Mass.,  February  28,  1906. 

Ed.  W.  Chamberlain,  My  Dear  Sir:  Your  favor  of  the  6th  inst. 
reached  me  here  and  I  have  just  concluded  reading  the  account  of  the 
infamous  persecution  of  Moses  Harman  [convicted  of  obscenity].  The 
recital  is  so  full  of  cruel,  heartless  outrages  as  to  arouse  all  one's  indigna- 
tion and  resentment.  I  may  be  able  to  lend  a  helping  hand  a  little  later 
and  you  may  count  on  me  to  do  my  part.  If  such  crimes  against  justice 
and  humanity  are  permitted  to  go  unrebuked,  the  conclusion  must  be 
that  the  world  is  not  fit  for  a  gentlemen  of  heart  and  intellect  such  as  Mr. 


V 

212  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Harman  to  live  in.     There  are  enough  good  people  but  they  are  asleep 
and  must  be  reached  and  aroused. — Eugene  V.  Debs. 

The  post  office  authorities  are  doubtless  performing  a  public  service 
in  depriving  swindlers  of  the  use  of  the  mails,  but  it  is  intrusting  them 
with  a  degree  of  power  which  may  some  day  be  abused,  says  a  contem- 
porary. Not  only  may  it "  some  day  be  abused,"  but  it  is  abused  now. 
The  post  office  censorship,  intended  to  apply  to  those  fraudulently  using 
the  mails,  has  become  a  most  damnable  tyranny.  It  is  a  constant  men- 
ace to  a  free  press  and  personal  liberty. 

We  have  in  mind,  as  we  write,  Moses  Harman,  editor  of  Lucifer,  who 
is  serving  a  term  in  the  Illinois  penitentiary  because  he  published  articles 
in  his  little  paper  which  petty  postal  officials  thought"  obscene."  They 
were  republished  by  many  influential  journals,  whose  editors  were  not 
molested.  Yet  there  is  not  a  purer-minded  man,  with  a  cleaner  life,  in 
the  whole  land,  than  Moses  Harman,  convicted  felon,  aged  seventy-five. 
—The  Star,  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  1906. 

The  home  should  be  the  heaven  of  our  earthly  existence.  It  should 
be  the  ulimate  outcome  of  every  normal  human  life.  Within  its  sphere 
should  be  reaUzed  all  the  exquisite  outcome  of  every  normal  human  life. 
W^ithin  its  sphere  should  be  realized  all  the  exquisite  anticipations  of 
our  early  dreams.  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  hard,  cold,  stern  realism 
of  the  average  home  life  does  not  fulfil  our  anticipations.  These  re- 
sults have  come  about  because  of  prudery,  because  men  blindly  enter 
the  realms  of  home  life.  Comstockery  is  to  blame  for  marital  unhappi- 
ness.  It  is  this  vicious  nastiness  that  has  allowed  men  and  women  to 
mate  in  ignorance  of  all  the  laws  appertaining  to  this  relation.  Moses 
Harman,  now  seventy-five  years  of  age,  shows  by  his  features  and  fine 
head  of  white  hair  that  his  life  has  been  clean  and  wholesome,  and  what- 
ever his  theories  may  be  or  have  been,  I  do  not  believe  they  will  do  other- 
wise than  make  the  home  ties  stronger  and  more  permanent.  It  is  to 
be  hoped  that  his  imprisonment  will  help  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
public  to  the  need  of  a  mighty  reform  relative  to  these  vastly  important 
subjects. — Physical  Culture. 

To-day  a  man  may  deliberately  murder  his  wife  by  a  series  of  exac- 
tions and  wrongs;  he  may  bring  to  his  own  home  diseases  as  the  result 
of  his  own  impure  life,  and  deliberately  infect  his  own  wife  with  a 
disease  which  is  now  annually  sending  many  thousands  of  women  to 
the  operating  table  for  surgical  treatment  of  the  most  serious  nature 
and  which  is  causing  the  death  of  thousands  of  pure,  innocent  and 
unsuspicious  wives,  and  yet  the  law  makes  it  a  crime  for  the  physician 
who  treats  the  husband  to  warn  the  wife  by  a  single  suggestion,  adjudges 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         213 

the  husband  as  acting  within  his  marital  rights,  and  even  here  in  Chicago 
send  a  man  to  the  penitentiary  for  a  series  of  years  who  dares  to  call 
public  attention  in  printed  form  to  such  a  fact.  .  .  .  The  law  as  it  now 
stands,  if  logically  enforced,  would  brand  the  Bible  as  an  obscene 
book,  scarcely  a  single  person  in  this  convention  could  escape  the 
penitentiary,  and  Jesus  himself,  if  he  came  to  Chicago  or  New  York 
could  be  arrested  and  successfully  imprisoned.  .  .  .  No  wonder  that 
the  statue  of  Justice  holding  the  scales  in  one  hand  is  represented  as 
totally  blinded  by  a  bandage  which  covers  both  eyes. — Rev.  Sylvanus 
Stall  in  The  Light,  January,  1907. 

Very  few  will  disagree  with  Mr.  Harman's  premises,  while  very  many 
will  disagree  with  his  theories  and  conclusions.  But  by  no  law  under 
heaven  has  any  man  in  the  United  States  of  America  the  shadow  of  a 
right  to  say  Mr.  Harman  shall  not  express  his  opinion,  without  molesta- 
tion. The  spirit  of  the  American  people  is  dead  within  them  if  they 
submit  to  such  an  outrage.  Then  any  opinion  on  any  subject  that  a 
mail  clerk  does  n't  know  the  alphabet  about  may  be  suppressed  accord- 
ing to  his  hmited  knowledge  of  obscenity  or  heresy.  It  was  mere  heresy 
in  Mr.  Harman's  case.  The  mail-bag  censor  said  to  him,  "  Your  ideas 
would  overturn  society,"  therefore  you  shall  be  shut  up  in  a  prison  cell 
for  one  year,  and  the  department  acquiesced.  .  .  . 

But  the  point  is,  Shall  a  man,  guiltless  of  any  crime,  be  railroaded  to 
the  penitentiary  by  government  clerks  acting  as  censors  ?  The  air  of 
the  dictatorship  that  vitiates  Washington  is  poison  to  liberty  and  democ- 
racy. A  storm  of  protest  should  be  raised  that  will  shake  the  walls  of 
the  capitol,  if  this  be  necessary,  to  restore  one  falsely  imprisoned  man 
to  freedom. 

The  menace  of  graft  and  greed  is  not  so  threatening  to  the  safety  of 
the  repubhc  as  this  exercise  of  arbitrary  and  unwarranted  power.  .  .  . 
Moses  Harman  is  fighting  Freedom's  fight — a  fight  for  womanhood  and 
manhood.  Help  him  and  his  holy  cause,  not  only  with  "  words  of  praise 
and  comfort,"  but  in  deeds.  Help  by  giving  according  to  your  means, 
to  a  grand^old  man  who,  in  durance  vile,  cannot  help  himself. — The 
Stor,  San  Francisco. 

Such  men  as  Harman,  [who  has  been  several  times  convicted 
of  "obscenity,"]  born  to  serve,  must  go  to  jail,  to  the  rack,  and 
the  scaffold.  This  has  always  been  so  and  always  will,  so  long  as  a 
large  majority  of  mankind  are  subject  to  the  will  of  a  small  minority — 
so  long  as  the  world  is  ruled  by  ignorance  and  superstition. 

To  shed  light  has  always  been  a  crime,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
light  is  a  menace  to  the  rule  of  darkness.  If  Moses  Harman  had  shed 
as  much  blood  as  he  has  light  he  would  be  honored  as  some  great  con- 


214  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

queror,  and  instead  of  lying  in  a  prison  pen  in  the  sunset  of  his  hfe  he 
would  be  feted  as  a  popular  idol  and  his  statue  would  adorn  the  parks 
of  the  cities.  Better  a  thousand  times  this  pure  man  in  the  stripes  of  a 
felon  than  an  apostate  in  purple  and  fine  linen. 

It  is  the  very  irony  of  fate  that  this  apostle  of  purity  should  be  punished 
for  alleged  impurity;  that  the  gross  and  sensual  in  our  sex  life  and  social 
relations,  so  abhorrent  to  his  refined  and  sensitive  nature,  and  against 
which  he  has  waged  unceasing  war,  should  have  suflBcient  power  to  so 
distort  his  features  as  to  have  lum  appear  the  author  of  their  being. 
The  vulgar,  ignorant  censors  of  Moses  Harman  have  no  conception  of 
his  real  mission ;  he  is  as  great  as  they  are  small,  and  is  destined  to  live 
as  nobly  as  they  are  doomed  to  perish  ignominiously. 

From  Jesus  Christ  to  Moses  Harman  the  fate  of  all  true  men  has  been 
the  same ;  from  Calvary  to  Joliet  not  one  has  escaped.  .  .  . 

Full  opportunity  for  full  development  is  the  inaUenable  right  of  all. 
He  who  denies  it  is  a  tyrant;  he  who  does  not  demand  it  is  a  coward; 
he  who  is  indifferent  to  it  is  a  slave;  he  who  does  not  desire  it  is  dead. — 
Eugene  V.  Debs. 

The  incarceration  of  Moses  Harman  in  a  federal  penitentiary,  serving 
a  year's  sentence  for  sending  objectionable  matter  through  the  mails,  is 
one  of  the  obscure  martyrdoms  which  occasionally  disgrace  our  boasted 
freedom.  One  of  the  articles  for  which  he  was  sentenced  was  a  reprint 
from  the  Woman's  Journal,  and  was  an  editorial  written  by  Alice  Stone 
Blackwell.  This  fact  alone  should  show  the  utterly  unwarranted  char- 
acter of  the  charge.  The  other  article  condemned  was  written  by  a 
woman  of  seventy.  Both  these  articles  aimed  to  point  out  the  cruelties 
and  immoraUties  possible  under  the  supposed  license  of  legal  family 
relations 

It  is  altogether  outrageous  that  a  fine  old  grandfather  should  be  serv- 
ing a  prison  sentence  for  printing  in  his  paper  the  words  of  honorable 
women  which  he  believes  to  be  needed  for  the  uplifting  of  human  con- 
ditions. The  general  ideas  advocated  in  the  paper  published  by  Mr. 
Harman  are  not  under  discussion.  It  was  not  for  his  philosophical  or 
governmental  theories  he  was  condemned.  No  laws  prevent  a  man 
from  airing  impracticable  and  erratic  notions.  He  was  condemned  for 
giving  publicity  to  most  important  educational  discussion  upon  subjects 
that  affect  the  very  foundation  of  human  welfare.  To  say  that  such  dis- 
cussion is  always,  and  however  expressed,  a  crime,  is  an  insult  to  the  in- 
telligence of  all  earnest  citizens. 

The  wrongs  committed  under  the  cloak  of  the  postal  laws  are  growing 
more  numerous  and  glaring.  A  censorship  which  makes  it  a  crime  to 
enlighten  the  people  on  matters  which  pure-minded  and  thoughtful  peo- 
ple regard  as  crucially  important,  is  an  outrage  not  to  be  tolerated  under 
forms  of  law  among  a  free  people. — Denver  Times. 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         215 

THE  CASE   OF   D.    M.    BENNETT 

The  Bennett-Comstock  trial  was  unsavory  in  many  respects.  But  it 
involves  the  right  to  print,  publish,  sell  and  circulate  through  the  mails 
matter  which  is  no  more  offensive  to  good  taste,  and  no  more  objection- 
able on  the  score  of  morals,  than  passages  in  Shakespeare  and  the  Bible. 
It  is  fast  becoming  the  general  opinion  that  Comstock  is  doing  more 
harm  than  good  by  a  zeal  that  is  not  according  to  knowledge,  and  officious 
meddling  with  private  and  public  rights. — Evening  Express. 

This  case  [of  Bennett  arrested  for  obscenity]  will  be  interesting  and 
important  because  it  will  tend  to  show  how  far  the  censorship  of  Mr. 
Anthony  Comstock  can  legally  be  carried,  and  it  may  be  the  means  of 
showing,  also,  to  what  responsibility,  if  to  any,  Mr.  Anthony  Comstock 
can  be  held  for  a  misuse  of  his  power.  That  this  power  is  dangerously 
vague  and  elastic  has  been  often  shown  in  its  unquestioned  exercise.  It 
has  also  been  shown  that  it  was  conferred  upon  Mr.  Comstock  by  meth- 
ods very  like  those  by  which  a  power  almost  as  arbitrary  and  as  irre- 
sponsible has  been  conferred  upon  Mr.  John  Davenport.  We  presume 
there  is  not  much  doubt  among  sensible  people  that  if  such  a  power  is 
to  be  conferred  upon  anybody,  Mr.  Anthony  Comstock  is  not  absolutely 
the  most  proper  person  in  the  world  to  be  clothed  with  it,  and  that  a 
dangerous  power  does  not  cease  to  be  dangerous  because  it  is  put  in 
motion  at  present  against  only  long-haired  and  empty-headed  persons. — 
New  York  World,  March  19,  1879. 

To  our  mind,  the  week  ending  March  22d  [1879]  has  been  made 
memorable  in  the  history  of  .this  country  as  one  of  the  periods  in  time 
which  will  be  looked  back  upon  by  posterity  as  indexes  of  the  narrow- 
ness of  sentiment  and  proneness  to  oppression  which  characterize  the 
present  generation.  Whatever  views  any  one  may  entertain  concerning 
Mr.  Bennett's  belief  or  his  course  of  action,  it  is  a  fact  that  he  is  firmly 
convinced  that  he  is  right,  and  as  no  law  has  yet  been  put  upon  the  statute 
books  of  the  United  States  avowedly  making  the  expression  of  any  man's 
honest  conviction — published  or  otherwise — a  crime,  we  submit  that 
it  is  a  breach  of  all  the  proprieties  (to  say  nothing  of  the  principles  of  jus- 
tice) to  make  use  of  the  ordinance  in  question  to  crush  out  such  works 
as  may  fail  to  square  with  popular,  religious,  and  other  standards.  This, 
however,  stripped  of  all  the  jonfusing  generalities  which  may  be  grouped 
around  it,  is  plainly  the  course  pursued  and  the  result  sought  to  be  ar- 
rived at  in  the  trial  just  closed. — Banner  of  Light,  March  29,  1879. 

While  we  boast  of  our  freedom  and  claim  for  ourselves  the  widest 
range  of  opinion  on  all  subjects,  we  are  practically  subjected  to  a  des- 


216  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

potism  from  sectarian  interference  that  is  perfectly  intolerable.  The 
latest  instance  of  this  reaches  us  from  New  York,  where  D.  M.  Bennett 

was  prosecuted  by  that  Christian  and  s 1,   Anthony   Comstock, 

for  sending,  as  it  was  claimed,  obscene  literature  through  the  mails. 
Comstock  had  mailed  an  order,  under  an  assumed  name,  for  a  book 
Bennett  had  published  [not  published,  but  sold],  to  popularize  certain 
opinions  concerning  the  marriage  tie. 

The  worst  feature  of  this  wretched  business  is  that  Congress  has 
sanctioned  by  law  a  tampering  with  mails  on  the  part  of  this  charlatan 
that  is  fatal  to  the  postal  service. 

This  is  all  uncalled-for — a  melancholy  farce.  There  is  law  enough 
on  the  statute  books  of  the  states  to  arrest  the  circulation  of  obscene 
literature  without  invading  the  mails.  The  trouble  is  that  these  laws 
are  not  enforced,  and  while  such  prosecutions  are  neglected,  a  great 
noise,  with  the  smallest  results,  is  indulged  in  to  give  this  very  unneces- 
sary individual  a  national  notoriety. — Washington  Capitol. 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  was  astonished  on  hearing  the  verdict  in  the  case  of 
Mr.  Bennett,  notwithstanding  the  strange  and  seemingly  perverse  rulings 
of  the  judge,  who  calls  to  mind  the  judicial  proceedings  of  the  time  of 
Charles  II.  The  inference  is  irresistible  that  the  offense  charged  is  a 
mere  pretext.  He  is  prosecuted  because  he  is  zealous  for  his  religion, 
which  happens  to  be  odious  to  a  considerable  number  of  influential  fel- 
low-citizens. His  religion  is  to  assist  his  countrymen  to  free  themselves 
from  superstitions  which  are  poisoning  virtue  at  its  source.  His  methods 
are,  indeed,  of  the  rough-and-ready  kind,  but  I  am  sure  his  purpose  is 
high  and  good. 

I  never  [before]  in  my  life  read  a  pamphlet  so  disagreeable  to  me  as  that 
"  Cupid's  Yokes,"  which  Mr.  Comstock  is  advertising  so  effectively  at 
the  expense  of  the  public.  But  it  is  plain  that  the  author  in  writing  it 
was  within  his  right  as  the  citizen  of  a  free  country.  He  merely  handled 
without  skill,  and  with  very  insufficient  knowledge,  and  too  hastily,  a 
topic  wliich  can  be  adequately  treated  only  by  men  of  vast  science  and 
profound,  far-seeing  prudence.  But  he  had  a  right  to  attempt  it,  and, 
if  he  had  been  let  alone,  the  attempt  would  long  ago  have  been  forgotten. 
I  still  trust  in  Mr.  Bennett's  escape  from  the  toils  of  his  enemies. — James 
Parton. 

An  editorial  in  the  World,  commenting  on  the  letter  of  one  of  the  jurors, 
which  it  published  simultaneously  with  the  Herald  and  Volks  Zeitung: 

The  letter  which  is  sent  us  by  Mr.  Valentine,  the  dissenting  juror  in 
the  case  of  Bennett,  deserves  careful  consideration.  The  questions  in- 
volved in  that  trial  were  very  serious.  A  writer  who  advocates  unpopu- 
lar opinions  on  important  subjects  is  liable  to  be  made  the  victim  of  legal 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION  217 

prosecution  unless  his  legal  rights  are  protected  with  the  utmost  care. 
That  his  opinions  are  fooHsh  and  his  manner  of  expressing  them  gross 
and  offensive,  does  not  affect  his  right  to  utter  them  unless  he  cleariy 
oversteps  the  limits  of  the  statute.  In  this  case  Judge  Benedict  made  a 
decision  surprising  to  laymen  in  ruling  that  the  context  of  the  phrases 
quoted  and  relied  upon  in  the  indictment  should  not  be  read  to  the  jury. 
Some  of  the  noblest  books  in  our  language  could  be  so  garbled  by  a  se- 
lection of  phrases  as  to  bring  them  within  the  prohibition  of  the  statute. 
Judge  Benedict's  definition  of  the  offense,  concerning  which  the  jury  was 
required  to  find,  had  the  misfortune  of  being  so  vague  as  to  be  almost 
worthless,  and  required  a  judicial  construction  from  the  jury.  The 
tendency  of  Federal  judges  since  the  war  has  been  to  usurp  the  functions 
of  the  jury.  Whether  Judge  Benedict  has  yielded  to  this  temptation  or 
not,  there  is  food  for  reflection  in  Mr.  Valentine's  remark  that,  if  the 
jury  had  been  left  to  construe  and  apply  the  statute,  Bennett  would  not 
have  been  convicted. 

Mr.  Anthony  Comstock  has  been  granted  by  a  stupid  Legislature 
powers  with  which  he  should  never  have  been  trusted,  simply  because 
he  is  not  intellectually  and  morally  competent  to  use  them  aright.  In 
the  wholesale  slaughter  that  he  has  made  among  the  venders  of  what  he 
calls  obscene  literature,  it  was  inevitable  that  he  should  do  some  good 
and  be  the  instrument  of  sending  to  prison  men  who  do  less  harm  there 
than  they  would  do  anywhere  else.  But  it  is  an  outrage  upon  individual 
and  social  rights  that  he  should  be  permitted  to  assail  with  impunity  men 
whose  lives,  taking  them  as  a  whole,  are  mainly  in  the  right,  and  who, 
by  stimulating  thought  on  important  sexual  questions,  accomplish  in- 
calculably more  good  than  Mr.  Comstock,  with  his  ferret-like  propensi- 
ties, can  hope  to  accomplish. 

We  live  in  an  age  when  all  important  subjects  are  being  excavated  to 
their  very  foundation.  Progress  cannot  afford  to  be  squeamish.  No 
honest  man  dare  shrink  from  any  fact  that  introspection  or  the  analysis 
of  physical,  mental,  and  moral  nature  reveals  to  him.  The  whole  civ- 
ilized world  is  now  networked  with  arguments  which  a  few  years  ago 
would  have  been  muflied  shamefacedly  in  silence.  To-day  the  only 
ones  who  ought  to  be  shamefaced  are  those  who  dare  not  or  will  not  think 
and  speak  for  themselves.  Men  like  Mr.  D.  M.  Bennett,  though  we  by 
no  means  espouse  the  peculiar  tenets  of  him  and  his  abettors,  do  not 
work  in  order  to  deprave  mankind;  and  should  any  one  be  punished, 
it  is  those  who  unjustly  seek  to  secure  his  chastisement. — Evening  Tele- 
gram, March  24,  1879. 

Mr.  Bennett's  trial  has  been  going  on  since  Tuesday  before  Judge 
Benedict  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  in  New  York.     There  was 


218  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

one  thing  about  the  trial  which  characterizes  neariy  all  cases  in  which 
men  and  women  of  hberal  ideas  are  interested,  and  that  was  the  intense 
bigotry  manifested  by  the  Judge.  The  only  evidence  which  the  Judge 
permitted  to  be  given  was  on  the  side  of  the  prosecution.  Every  point 
raised  by  the  defense,  every  question  asked  that  would  mitigate  the  al- 
leged offense  in  the  eyes  of  the  jurymen,  every  effort  to  strengthen  the 
defendant's  position,  was  peremptorily  "ruled  out"  by  Judge  Benedict. 
If  the  daily  reports  of  the  New  York  Herald  were  anything  like  the  truth, 
the  whole  proceeding  was  a  farce,  and  the  case  one  of  clear  persecution. 
The  trial  was  characterized  by  the  same  spirit  that  ruled  in  the  case  of 
the  Government  against  Susan  B.  Anthony  for  offering  to  vote,  and  was 
like  nearly  all  endeavors  to  enforce  cruel  laws  against  individual  liberty 
and  the  freedom  of  conscience.  Talk  about  justice  in  a  court  of  law! 
The  courts  in  many  cases  are  nothing  but  the  instruments  for  enforcing 
popular  prejudices.  Instead  of  being  used  to  protect  the  weak  against 
the  strong,  to  guard  the  few  from  the  oppressions  of  the  many,  to  defend 
the  poor  from  the  power  of  the  rich,  encourage  free  thought,  free  speech, 
free  press,  and  personal  liberty — ^instead  of  doing  this,  they  are  the  weap- 
ons used  by  wealth,  by  power,  by  "popular  opinion,"  by  bigotry,  to 
suppress  innovation — the  only  means  of  advancement — ^and  to  keep  the 
world  in  darkness.  This  is  the  mission  of  many  courts  of  justice  (  ?) 
and  if  they  ever  had  a  different  use  they  have  outlived  them  by  years. — 
Port  Jarvis,  N.  Y.,  Evening  Gazette,  March  22,  1879. 

Mr.  Alfred  A.  Valentine,  one  of  the  jurors  in  the  Comstock-Bennett 
case,  has  pubUshed  a  card  explaining  why,  after  maintaining  Bennett's 
innocence  fifteen  hours,  he  finally  voted  for  his  conviction.  The  jury 
had  been  charged  to  follow  strictly  and  only  the  definitions  of  Judge 
Benedict.  And  the  judge  had  declared  that  the  "test"  of  indecency 
and  lewdness  in  a  publication  is  its  "tendency  to  deprave  and  corrupt 
the  morals  of  those  whose  minds  are  open  to  such  influence  and  into 
whose  hands  such  a  publication  may  fall " ;  "  its  tendency  to  excite  lust- 
ful thoughts."  It  is  obvious,  of  course,  that  on  such  a  definition  there 
was  no  alternative  but  to  convict  Bennett.  On  such  a  definition  the 
publisher  of  the  works  of  Moliere,  Rabelais,  Boccaccio,  Chaucer,  and 
Skakespere  could  be  convicted.  There  is  no  question  that  passages  can 
be  culled  out  of  the  Bible  which  in  themselves  have  "a  tendency"  to 
excite  improper  feelings.  Admit  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  Judge  Bene- 
dict, and  half  the  literature  of  the  world  goes  under  ban.  This 
*'  tendency "  dictum  is  sheer  usurpation,  the  putting  a  gloss  on  the  law 
which  is  not  in  the  law,  and  does  not  belong  there.  It  is  extra-judicial, 
and  an  encroachment  on  the  freedom  of  utterance  and  publication. 
We  say  this  all  the  more  emphatically  because  we  utterly  condemn  the 
stupid  book  on  which  the  trial  was  based.     We  have  no  sympathy 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         219 

whatever  with  its  notions,  nor  with  the  teachings  of  Heywood  and  his 
school.  But  we  protest  against  advertising  their  pubUcations  by  un- 
justly persecuting  them,  and  against  any  encroachment  on  the  fullest 
liberty  of  utterance  under  the  law.  We  do  not  live  under  a  "  tendency," 
but  under  law. — New  York  Evening  Express,  March  27th,  1879. 

There  is  a  society  in  this  city  organized  for  the  suppression  of  vice. 
The  spirit  and  purpose  of  this  society  I  take  to  be  honestly  and  simply 
this :  To  suppress  vice,  to  keep  down  the  elements  that  are  perpetually 
demoralizing  and  rooting  out  the  best  seeds  of  human  nature.  With 
the  methods  by  which  this  society  hopes  to  achieve  these  results,  I  have 
no  sympathy  whatever.  Indeed,  I  protest  with  all  my  heart  against 
some  of  the  methods  which  they  conspicuously  employ.  ...  If  the 
higher  powers  are  to  subdue  the  lower,  it  must  be  by  open  and  honorable 
warfare.  It  is  of  their  essence  that  they  are  dignified,  elevated,  and  pure, 
taking  every  advantage  which  nobleness  gives,  scorning  all  advantage 
which  only  baseness  allows.  .  .  .  Again  I  protest  with  all  my  might 
against  the  inquisition  into  the  mail  service  of  the  United  States.  If 
there  must  be  one  thing  upon  which  a  free  people  must  plant  themselves 
firmly,  never  to  be  moved,  it  is  this  principle  that  there  must  be  no  tam- 
pering with  the  mails,  and  that  whatever  is  deposited  in  the  mails  must 
go  to  its  destination.  Let  the  harm  be  checked  on  the  spot  where  it 
falls.  If  the  injury  is  done,  let  it  be  repaired  where  it  is  done;  not  on 
the  way,  not  after  it  has  started.  Meet  it  where  it  occurs.  .  .  .  Again, 
what  honorable,  high-minded  soul  does  not  blush  with  indignation 
when  he  sees  the  confusion  that  is  made  by  people  who  insist  upon  it 
that  liberty  of  thought,  freedom  of  speculation,  freedom  of  speech,  in- 
volves license  of  conduct,  and  when  war  is  openly  made  upon  free- 
thinking  on  the  ground  that  in  that  very  movement  and  by  that  very 
process  war  is  made  against  licentious  doing.  The  two  things  are  not 
only  different,  but  absolutely  and  forever  hostile  one  to  the  other,  and 
when  that  society  adopts  such  methods  as  it  commonly  does,  methods 
of  confusion,  then  it  is  difficult  even  to  make  allowance  for  the  spirit 
with  which  the  association  works,  and  not  doubt  the  heart  of  that  society, 
—Rev.  O.  B.  Frothingham,  delivered  March  3,  1878. 

Freedom's  battles  must  be  fought,  many  times,  in  each  generation. 
We  may  be  in  the  greatest  danger  when  feeling  most  secure  in  our  rights. 
We  recall  a  passage  in  the  speech  of  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews,  in  the  year 
1880,  at  the  reception  to  D.  M.  Bennett,  the  founder  of  this  paper,  on 
his  liberation  from  prison,  where  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  a  free  press 
had  brought  him.  Mr.  Andrews  said :  "We  have  gone  back  since  the 
days  of  the  antislavery  war  as  we  went  back  naturally  and  necessarily 
between  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and   the  antislavery  war. 


220  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

When  there  is  not  some  aggression  on  hand ;  when  men  are  not  aroused 
to  think;  when  a  new  generation  of  people  arise  that  have  not  been  in- 
doctrinated, we  are  always  to  expect  that  there  will  be  a  receding  from 
the  advanced  position  which  our  highest  doctrine  announces.  We  must 
be  on  the  alert  to  watch  for  such  conditions  as  this,  and  we  are  now  in 
that  condition  exactly — that  we  have  become  so  secure,  in  the  possession 
of  our  freedom,  that  we  did  not  anticipate  that  any  invasion  of  it  was  to 
come  from  any  source  whatever;  and  the  community  at  large  is  not  as 
yet  aroused  to  the  fact  that  any  such  aggression,  any  such  conspiracy 
against  the  freedom  of  the  American  people,  has  been  devised  and  par- 
tially executed  as  that  which  has  sent  that  man  to  prison  to  wear  prison 
clothes  and  to  work  at  hard  labor  under  the  severest  discipline  for  one 
year."  The  experience  of  Bennett  taught  the  Liberals  who  were  in  the 
fight  that  appearances  are  never  to  be  trusted — that  boasting  of  free 
speech  and  free  press  does  not  prove  that  we  have  them.  It  taught  us 
the  truth  of  the  words  of  Andrews,  that  in  a  generation  of  people  not 
indoctrinated  with  liberty  by  being  called  upon  to  vindicate  it,  but  who 
rely  upon  the  "heritage"  of  the  fathers,  aggression  may  spring  up  and 
succeed  and  the  community  remain  indifferent.  It  drove  from  our 
mind  forever  the  delusion  that  liberty  can  be  inherited.  The  fathers 
transmitted  the  principle  and  the  example;  the  achievement  we  must 
win,  each  generation  for  itself.  The  love  of  liberty  is  an  acquired  trait, 
and  among  the  first  to  be  lost;  aggression  comes  to  us  from  the  beasts, 
and  is  hard  to  eliminate.  We  may  be  so  far  from  the  scene  of  aggression 
as  not  even  to  hear  of  it,  but  we  may  be  sure  that  it  is  perpetually  doing 
its  work,  and  that  there  is  never  a  time  when  the  soldier  of  liberty  can 
with  safety  abandon  the  field.  The  cry  of  Peace,  peace,  when  there  is 
no  peace,  is  not  so  disastrously  misleading  as  the  cry  of  Victory  in  the 
same  circumstances. — The  Truth  Seeker ^  August  7,  1909. 

Comstock  has  seized  the  crank  and  given  it  another  twist.  Upon  the 
issue  of  the  last  number  of  The  Truth  Seeker,  he  in  person,  and  in  his 
ofiicial  capacity  of  active  inquisitor,  visited  the  manager  of  the  American 
News  Company  with  a  copy  of  our  paper  in  his  hand,  and  by  his  arrogant, 
intimidating  manner  bulldozed  the  manager  to  the  extent  of  prevent- 
ing the  News  Companies  of  the  city  handling  The  Truth  Seeker,  as  for 
years  has  been  their  habit.  This  self-constituted  censor  of  the  Ameri- 
can press  asserted  that  The  Truth  Seeker  is  an  immoral  paper,  and  that 
the  books  which  are  advertised  in  its  columns  are  immoral  publications, 
the  sale  of  which  ought  to  be  prohibited.  He  said  the  columns  of  the 
paper  contain  matter  which  the  courts  have  decided  to  be  indecent,  and 
that  those  who  sell  the  paper,  and  especially  those  who  by  any  chance 
send  it  by  mail,  run  the  risk  of  prosecution  in  the  United  States  courts. .  < . 

If  he  can  suppress  our  publications  because  the  paper  contains  ac- 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         221 

curate  reports  of  a  trial  held  in  one  of  the  highest  courts  of  our  country, 
giving  the  evidence  and  the  arguments  deUvered  in  the  presence  of  nu- 
merous la(lies  and  gentlemen,  he  may  soon  make  demonstrations  upon 
the  daily  papers,  which  pubUsh  in  full  such  trials  as  the  OUver-Cameron 
breach  of  promise  case,  the  Vanderbilt  will  case,  the  Beecher-Tilton 
adultery  case,  and  many  other  similar  cases,  in  either  of  which  was  far 
more  that  is  offensive  to  decency  and  refinement  than  anvthing  which 
was  brought  out  in  our  trial  before  Judge  Benedict.  If  hecan  suppress 
our  publications  because  he  decides  them  to  be  immoral  inasmuch  as 
they  oppose  the  divinity  of  the  Christian  system  of  religion,  he  may  soon 
take  courage  enough  to  attack  such  houses  as  D.  Appleton  &  Co., 
Harper  Brothers,  J.  B,  Lippincott  &  Co.,  G.  W.  Carleton  &  Co.,  Put- 
nam's Sons,  and  others,  which  publish  such  works  as  Darwin's,  Huxley's, 
Spencer's,  Mill's,  Haeckel's,  Schmidt's,  Prof.  Draper's,  Strauss',  Buech- 
ner's,  JaccoUiot's,  Chadwick's,  Frothingham's,  Sutherland's,  and  many 
others,  whose  writings  are  quite  as  damaging  to  the  prevailing  system  of 
religion  as  anything  that  has  emanated  from  our  press,  which  all  appeal 
to  the  intelligence  of  men  and  women  rather  than  to  their  superstitions 
and  prejudices.  .  .  .  The  very  fact  that  Comstock  was  able  to  boast, 
and  in  Judge  Benedict's  own  court-room,  and  immediately  after  the 
retirement  of  the  jury  in  our  case,  that  he"  never  lost  a  case  in  that  court," 
that  he  could  "always  coiint  on  a  conviction  before  Judge  Benedict," 
would  make  us  wish  to  be  tried  before  any  other  judge,  and  the  same 
fact  would  cause  us  to  wish  that  he  would  not  one  of  the  three  Judges 
to  review  and  decide  upon  the  case. — The  Truth  Seeker,  1879. 

[This  letter  of  Juror  Valentine  is  of  more  than  ordinary  importance, 
for  it  shows  us  in  the  making  some  of  the  first  links  in  the  chain  forged 
for  "obscenity"  juries.  Judge  Foster  completed  the  chain  by  adding 
the  ring  and  padlock  in  the  Craddock  case.     S.] 

Sir:  The  newspaper  reports  of  the  trial  of  Mr.  D.  M.  Bennett  for 
mailing  "Cupid's  Yokes"  seems  to  make  a  few  words  of  explanation  on 
my  part  necessary.  .  .  .  After  the  jury  retired  for  deliberation,  there 
was  doubt  about  the  meaning  of  those  words  upon  which  the  whole  case 
hung.  We  had  been  charged  to  follow  strictly  and  only  the  definitions 
of  the  Judge  (Hon.  Charles  L.  Benedict),  and  accordingly  we  sent  to 
him  for  them  and  received  them  in  these  words,  which  I  copied  at  the 
time  (the  italics  are  mine) : 

"  The  test  of  obscenity  is  whether  the  tendency  of  the  matter  is  to  de- 
prave and  corrupt  the  morals  of  those  whose  minds  are  open  to  such  in- 
fluences and  into  whose  hands  a  publication  of  this  sort  may  fall. 

"  *Lewd '  means  a  tendency  to  excite  lustful  thoughts. 

"Passages  are  indecent  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute  if  they  con- 


222  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

tain  obscenity,  that  is  to  say,  matter  having  that  form  of  indecency  which 
is  calculated  to  promote  the  general  corruption  of  morals." 

These  definitions  were  so  broad  and  uncertain  that  it  seemed  to  me 
they  might  be  used  to  condemn  a  very  large,  and  perhaps  the  larger 
part  of  the  literature  of  the  country,  as  well  as  the  isolated  passages  that 
had  been  picked  out  of  "  Cupid's  Yokes."  I  say  isolated  passages,  for 
the  Court  did  not  allow  the  whole  book  to  come  in  evidence  before  us, 
although  we  each  had  a  copy  of  it  in  the  jury-room.  I  felt,  and  I  still 
feel,  that  these  definitions  carry  the  statue  much  further  than  Congress 
ever  intended,  or  a  fair  application  of  it  would  warrant. 

The  pamphlet  in  question  seems  to  be  immoral  from  our  ordinary 
point  of  view,  but  not  obscene  within  the  strict  meaning  of  the  statute, 
although  the  isolated  passages  selected  might,  standing  by  themselves, 
come  under  the  definitions  of  the  Judge.  I  wished,  therefore,  to  main- 
tain the  right  of  the  author,  Mr.  Heywood,  and  of  those  who  agree  with 
him,  to  differ  with  me. 

Under  these  convictions  I  hesitated  to  do  what  seemed  an  act  of 
wrong  and  injustice  to  Mr.  Bennett  (of  whom  I  had  no  knowledge  what- 
ever), but  I  could  not  violate  my  oath  nor  disobey  the  instructions  of  the 
Court.  I  could  only  express  my  conviction  by  withholding  my  concur- 
rence for  a  reasonable  time — about  fifteen  hours;  then  I  gave  it  with  a 
protest  and  as  a  means  to  obtain  a  less  sweeping  construction  of  this 
statute  upon  appeal  or  a  change  of  it  by  those  who  made  it.  Had  the 
jurors  been  left  to  construe  and  apply  it  Mr.  Bennett  would  never  have 
been  convicted.  Yours  very  respectfully, 

Alfred  A.  Valentine. 

No.  233  Broadway,  March  24, 1879. 


If  anything  were  needed  to  confirm  our  original  judgment  about  Mr. 
Bennett's  prosecution,  the  above  card  of  Mr.  Valentine  is  just  that  thing. 
Particularly  weighty  is  that  part  of  it  which  points  out  that  not  the  char- 
acter of  the  whole  book  but  only  certain  isolated  passages  of  it  were 
passed  upon.  How  appropriate  is  the  remark  of  Mr.  Valentine,  that 
measured  by  that "  test "  the  greater  part  of  literature  must  be  condemned! 
In  fact,  what  would  become  of  Goethe,  Schiller,  Shakespere,  Byron  and 
similar  unimportant  ( ?)  a\ithors  r  Above  all,  what  would  become  of 
the  Bible  if  we  should  take  therefrom  single  sentences  and  words,  and 
upon  them  found  a  judgment  upon  the  moral  or  immoral  character  (or 
tendency)  of  these  writings.  O!  Ye  Pharisees  and  Hypocrites! — New 
York  VolJcs  Zeitung,  March  27,  1879. 

The  trial  was  an  infamously  one-sided  affair,  the  judge  being  an  enemy 
to  Freethought  and  apparently  determined  to  convict  the  prisoner  and 
punish  an  Infidel  by  fair  means  if  convenient,  by  foul  means  if  necessary. 


BRIEFER  DEFENSES  OF  SEX-DISCUSSION         223 

He  refused  to  admit  the  testimony  of  such  men  as  O.  B.  Frothingham, 
Elizur  Wright,  and  Oliver  Johnson  to  prove  that  the  book  was  not  ob- 
scene. .  .  .  The  court  held  that  the  good  object  of  the  writer  of  the  book 
was  not  a  matter  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  The  jury  were  to  con- 
sider "  whether  the  tendency  of  the  matter  was  to  deprave  or  corrupt  the 
morals  of  those  whose  minds  are  open  to  such  influences  and  into  whose 
bands  publications  of  this  sort  may  fall." 

On  this  principle  a  jury  of  Infidels  might  find  every  Christian  pub- 
lisher in  the  land  a  fit  subject  for  the  law's  vengeance,  and  a  Christian 
jury  might  cause  to  be  fined  and  imprisoned  every  Infidel  pubhsher,  or 
a  jury  of  Prohibitionists  every  advertiser  of  intoxicating  liquors,  or  a 
jury  of  vegetarians  every  publisher  who  dared  to  advertise  the  virtues 
of  meat,  and  so  on  through  an  endless  category.  CathoUc  might  punish 
Protestant  and  vice  versa,  it  being  not  a  matter  of  right  but  of  might  in 
all  these  cases.  Whether  or  not  the  tendency  of  a  book  is  to  "  deprave 
and  corrupt  the  morals  "  is  a  matter  of  mere  opinion  susceptible  of  no 
proof  whatever.  Every  reformatory  document  has  a  tendencv  to  "  cor- 
rupt the  morals,"  if  we  are  to  take  the  opinion  of  those  who  are  opposed 
to  reform,  and  they  are  generally  in  the  majority.  The  abominable 
ruling  of  Judge  Benedict  in  Bennett's  case  would  muzzle  the  press  of 
the  Democratic  party  throughout  the  United  States  during  Republican 
ascendancy,  and  vice  versa.  Not  an  abolition  paper  could  have  been 
tolerated  under  it.  Every  Greenback  journal  might  be  silenced.  Lib- 
erty of  speech  and  press  is  a  miserable  farce  if  law  sanctions  the  punish- 
ment of  a  man  for  sending  through  the  mails,  not  matter  that  has  cor- 
rupted anybody's  morals,  but  matter  that  in  the  opinion  of  a  probable 
set  of  bigots  and  ignoramuses,  may  possibly  tend  at  some  future  time  to 
corrupt  the  morals  of  some  imaginary  human  being! 

This  outrage  upon  Bennett  and  liberty  is  perhaps  the  opening  of  a 
Y.  M.  C.  A.  plot  to  root  out  "  heresy "  and  establish  the  pet  Christian 
God  and  his  lackeys  in  power  over  a  people  heretofore  superior  to  either 
or  both.  At  any  rate,  every  friend  of  freedom  ought  to  make  Bennett's 
case  his  own  at  once  and  aid  him  by  voice  and  pen,  ballot  and  pocket- 
book,  in  maintaining  in  this  struggle  that  great  pioneer  of  truth,  con- 
queror for  justice,  and  guardian  of  liberty,  which  all  bigots  and  tyrants 
and  "  heaven-ordained  "  public  beggars  and  pilferers,  with  good  reason 
fear  and  detest — the  right  of  free  speech. 

Bennett  has  taken  an  appeal,  but  if  not  successful  we  shall  soon  hear 
of  him  in  his  honorable  old  age  as  an  occupant  of  a  felon's  cell — not  there 
for  any  deed  of  dishonesty,  or  for  lawfully  cheating  his  creditors,  or  for 
oppressing  the  poor,  or  for  injuring  his  fellow-man  in  any  way,  but  for 
simply  sending  through  the  mails  a  book  which,  in  the  opinion  of  less 
than  a  dozen  incompetent  men,  may  have  a  tendency  to  corrupt  the  morals 
of  some  person  or  persons,  the  existence  of  whom  is  neither  known  nor 


«e4  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

specified.  If  this  is  the  beginning,  what  may  we  expect  in  the  end  from 
the  Comstock  "morahty"  mill,  and  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  who  grind  it? — 
Winstead  (Conn.)  Press,  March  27,  1879. 


I  am  very  pleased  to  hear  of  the  establishment  of  the  Free  Speech 
League  and  I  trust  it  will  have  wide  influence  and  do  much  good.  It 
is  sad  to  hear  that  in  the  United  States,  of  all  countries,  such  a  League 
should  have,  any  function  to  perform.  Some  of  the  examples  you  nar- 
rate are  scarcely  credible.  I  have,  for  instance,  read  the  first  edition 
of  Warren's  "Almost  Fourteen."  and  it  is  so  admirable  in  tone,  so 
delicate  and  reticent,  almost  to  a  fault,  that  one  scarcely  knows  what 
to  think  of  the  mental  state  of  the  people  who  could  adjudge  it  to  be 
*'  obscene." 

It  seems  to  me  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  regarding  the 
soundness  of  your  view  of  "obscenity"  as  residing  exclusively,  not  in 
the  thing  contemplated,  but  in  the  mind  of  the  contemplating  person. 
The  case  has  lately  been  reported  of  a  young  schoolmaster,  who  always 
felt  tempted  to  commit  a  criminal  assault  by  the  sight  of  a  boy  in  knick- 
erbockers; that  for  him  was  an  "obscene"  sight — must  we  therefore 
conclude  that  all  boys  in  knickerbockers  shall  be  forcibly  suppressed 
as  "  obscene."  ? — Dr.  Havelock  Ellis,  in  a  private  letter. 


SECTION    VII. 

LIBERTY    OF    CONSCIENCE    AND    SPEECH 
FOR    ANARCHISTS 


We  trust  that  no  attempt  will  be  made  to  suppress  Anarchist  hterature. 
No  doubt  it  does  some  harm,  but  still  greater  harm  would  be  done  by 
closing  the  safety  valve.  A  man  who  is  not  allowed  to  kill  kings  and 
ministers  with  ink  is  more,  not  less,  Ukely  to  try  to  murder  them  with 
dynamite. — The  Spectator. 

I  treat  with  scorn  the  puny  and  pitiful  assertion  that  grievances  are 
not  to  be  complained  of,  that  our  redress  is  not  to  be  agitated ;  for  in  such 
cases,  remonstrance  cannot  be  too  strong,  agitation  cannot  be  too  violent, 
to  show  to  the  world  with  what  injustice  our  fair  claims  are  met  and  un- 
der what  tyranny  the  people  suffer. — Daniel  O'Connell. 

A  mercenary  informer  [member  of  spy  societies]  knows  no  distinction. 
Under  such  a  system  [as  tolerates  thus  association]  the  obnoxious  people 
are  slaves,  not  only  to  the  government,  but  Ihey  Uve  at  the  mercy  of  every 
individual ;  they  are  at  once  the  slaves  of  the  whole  community  and  of 
every  part  of  it;  and  the  worst  and  most  unmerciful  men  are  those  on 
whose  goodness  they  must  depend. — Author  not  known  to  editor. 

If  any  person,  void  of  modesty  and  shame,  shall  think  our  name  is  to 
be  abused  by  insolent  reproach,  and  be  wantonly  a  turbulent  disparager 
of  the  times,  we  will  not  have  him  subjected  to  punishment,  nor  sustain 
any  hardship  or  severity,  because  if  it  hath  proceeded  from  levity  it  is  to 
be  contemned;  if  from  insanity,  most  worthy  of  compassion;  if  from  in- 
jury, it  is  to  be  pardoned. — Decree  of  Emperor  Theodosius. 

Of  all  the  miserable,  unprofitable,  inglorious  wars  in  the  world  is 
the  war  against  words.  Let  men  say  just  what  they  like.  Let  them 
propose  to  cut  every  throat  and  burn  every  house — if  so  they  like  it. 
We  have  nothing  to  do  with  a  man's  words  or  a  man's  thoughts,  except 
to  put  against  them  better  words  or  better  thoughts,  and  so  to  win  in 
the  great  moral  and  intellectual  duel  that  is  always  going  on,  and  on 
which  all  progress  depends. — Hon.  Auberon  Herbert,  Westminster 
Gazette,  Nov.  22,  1893. 

I  am  not  a  citizen  of  America,  England,  or  Germany.  I  am  a  citizen 
of  that  country  in  which  a  man  is  permitted  to  advocate  any  rehgion, 
or  no  religion — Catholicism  or  Atheism;  where  a  man  is  permitted  to 
preach  in  favor  of  absolute  government  or  no  government — ^Autocracy 
or  Anarchy;  where  a  man  may  express  himself  in  favor  of  any  marriage 

225 


226  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

system,  or  no  marriage  system — ^Monogomy  or  Variety.  I  am  a  citizen 
of  that  country  where  ideas  are  not  branded  as  crimes;  where  thought 
is  not  chained  behind  prison  bars ;  where  freedom  is  a  fact,  not  a  fiction ; 
where  Social  Ostracism  is  not  the  fate  of  those  who  really  think.  Where 
is  this  Country,  and  what  is  its  name  ?  O,  this  Country  is  far,  far  away, 
and  its  name  is  The  Future! — ^Victor  RobinsoU. 

Every  new  truth  which  has  ever  been  propounded  has,  for  a  time, 
caused  mischief;  it  has  produced  discomfort,  and  often  unhappiness. 
sometimes  by  disturbing  social  or  religious  arrangements,  and  sometimes 
merely  by  the  disruption  of  old  and  cherished  associations  of  thoughts. 
It  is  only  after  a  certain  interval,  and  when  the  frame-work  of  affairs 
has  adjusted  itself  to  the  new  truth,  that  its  good  effects  preponderate; 
and  the  preponderance  continues  to  increase,  until,  at  length,  the 
truth  causes  nothing  but  good.  But,  at  the  outset,  there  is  always 
harm.  And  if  the  truth  is  very  great  as  well  as  very  new,  the  harm  is 
serious.  Men  are  made  uneasy;  they  flinch;  they  cannot  bear  the 
sudden  light;  a  general  restlessness  supervenes;  the  face  of  society 
is  disturbed,  or  perhaps  convulsed;  old  interests  and  old  beliefs  have 
been  destroyed  before  new  ones  have  been  created.  These  symptoms 
are  the  precursors  of  revolution;  they  have  preceded  all  the  great 
changes  through  which  the  world  has  passed. — Buckle,  "  History  of 
Civilization." 

A  proposition  to  forbid  and  punish  the  teaching  or  the  propagation 
of  the  doctrine  of  Anarchism,  i.  e.,  the  doctrine  or  belief  that  all  estab- 
lished government  is  wrongful  and  pernicious  and  should  be  destroyed, 
is  inconsistent  with  the  freedom  of  speech  and  press,  unless  carefully 
confined  to  cases  of  solicitation  of  crime,  which  will  be  discussed  pres- 
ently. As  the  freedom  of  reUgion  would  have  no  meaning  without  the 
liberty  of  attacking  all  religion,  so  the  freedom  of  political  discussion  is 
merely  a  phrase  if  it  must  stop  short  of  questioning  the  fundamental 
ideas  of  politics,  law,  and  government.  Otherwise  every  government  is 
justified  in  drawing  the  line  of  free  discussion  at  those  principles  or  in- 
stitutions which  it  deems  essential  to  its  perpetuation — a  view  to  which 
the  Russian  government  would  subscribe.  It  is  of  the  essence  of  polit- 
ical liberty  that  it  may  create  disaffection  or  other  inconvenience  to  the 
existing  government,  otherwise  there  would  be  no  merit  in  tolerating  it. 
This  toleration,  however,  like  all  toleration,  is  based  not  upon  generosity 
but  on  sound  policy;  on  the  consideration,  namely,  that  ideas  are  not 
suppressed  by  suppressing  their  free  and  public  discussion,  and  that 
such  discussion  alone  can  render  them  harmless  and  remove  the  cause 
for  illegality  by  giving  hope  of  their  realization  by  lawful  means. — Prof. 
Ernst  Freund  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  in  "  Police  Power,"  page  475. 


LIBERTY  OF  SPEECH  FOR  ANARCHISTS         2i7 

The  Anarchist  will  not  cease  to  be  a  danger — (one  of  many,  many 
dangers) — until  we  set  up  healthy  ideals  in  the  market-place,  in  Wall 
Street,  and  at  Washington.  We  need  not  preach  love  for  neighbor — 
that  is,  perhaps,  asking  too  much;  but  we  ought  to  insist,  at  least,  upon 
a  wholesome  regard  for  his  rights.  It  has  been  suggested  that  we  now 
love  him  too  much  like  the  traditional  lover — we  love  the  very  ground 
he  treads  upon — which  is  a  good  enough  reason  for  taking  it  from  under 
his  feet.  We  should  respect  his  liberties,  and,  as  we  need  love  him  only 
as  ourselves,  we  should  respect  our  own  liberties  too.  It  is  hard  to 
preserve  liberty  in  a  land  where  the  money-bag  is  supreme  and  where 
it  can  count  upon  the  mailed  hand  of  war  to  carry  out  its  behests.  And 
yet  freedom  was  our  first  love  and  in  our  younger  and  healthier  days 
the  love  of  it  coursed  in  our  veins.  All  liberty  involves  a  risk,  but  then 
it  is  often  a  risk  worth  taking.  And  all  repression  involves  risks  too, 
and  these  risks  are  so  much  less  noble  and  alluring!  Freedom  pre- 
supposes strength  and  courage,  but  we  are  becoming  cowardly  in  our 
old  age,  and  are  afraid  to  allow  men  to  land  upon  our  shores  who  dare 
to  "disbelieve"  in  our  institutions  or  to  criticise  them. 

It  is,  perhaps,  unlikely  that  we  should  soon  return  to  our  old-time 
devotion  to  freedom.  So  be  it.  But,  in  that  case,  let  us  stop  talking 
about  it.  Let  us  clear  ourselves  of  cant  and  cease  to  be  hjrpocrites. 
Let  us  take  down  the  beautiful  statue  of  "Liberty  Enlightening  the 
W^orld,"  that  brazen  lie,  which  now  casts  its  beams  upon  Ellis  Island 
and  its  prison,  and  let  us  put  up  in  its  place  an  ogre  of  iron,  grasping  a 
gnarled  and  knotted  club,  and  casting  its  baneful  shadow  upon  the  im- 
migrant,— an  image  no  longer  of  Liberty  Enlightening,  but  of  Despot- 
ism Darkening,  the  World. — Ex-Judge  Ernest  Crosby  in  North  Amer- 
ican Review,  1904. 

If  the  American  theory  of  social  organization  is  sound;  that  is,  if 
reason  is  to  be  the  determining  factor  in  ordering  our  associative  life, 
then  they  are  most  unwise  who  favor,  even  if  only  by  apology  after  the 
fact,  the  "removal"  of  chosen  chiefs  of  state;  and  they  are  equally  un- 
wise who  endeavor  by  force  to  suppress  expressions  of  discontent,  even 
if  this  discontent  sometimes  foolishly  voices  itself  as  sympathy  for  or 
approval  of  unfortunate  unbalancetl  assassins.  The  surest  way  to 
weaken  the  influence  and  power  of  a  tyrannous  official  is  to  let  in  the 
light  upon  his  actions.  To  kill  him  is  to  rally  his  party  and  the  over- 
whelming majority  of  all  other  parties  to  avenge  his  death.  The  surest 
way  to  prevent  incendiary  utterances  is  to  let  folks  talk.  On  the  one 
side,  do  not  throw  in  too  much  fuel,  raising  the  steam  above  the  danger- 
point;  and  on  the  other  side,  do  not  sit  on  the  safety-valve. 

The  so-called  "yellow"  press  of  this  and  other  cities  has  done  vast 
harm  by  its  sensationalism,  its  appeal  to  class  feeling,  to  passion,  to  in- 


228  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

discriminating  hatred  of  what  is;  by  its  magnifying  of  relatively  unim- 
portant issues  and  its  minimizing  of  \'ital  questions;  by  its  prying  into 
private  affairs  and  its  sinister  disregard  of  personal  liberty  and  the  salu- 
tary freedom  of  speech,  press,  and  life.  But  is  there  a  careful  student 
of  human  nature  and  human  history  who  for  a  moment  thinks  that  evil 
would  have  been  less  had  this  most  unsanitary  press  been  subjected  to 
a  rigid  official  censorship  ?  Are  we  not  as  certain  as  that  we  live  that 
an  attempt  to  muzzle  these  unwholesome  sheets  would  have  multiplied 
ten  times  the  evil  wrought  by  and  through  them  ?  The  very  badness 
<)f  their  conduct  has  made  the  saner,  more  thoughtful,  less  invasive, 
even  if  "conservative,"  journals  much  more  welcome  to  earnest  men 
and  women  that  they  might  have  been  had  they  not  constantly  been 
confronted  and  warned  by  these  "horrible  examples."  The  most 
nearly  effective  censor  of  the  press  is  the  press  itself. — Edwin  C.  Walker, 
in  "Liberty  and  Assassination." 

Ah!  do  not  hasten  to  say,  This  is  a  moral  Malady!  This,  good  or 
bad,  this  is  human  Thought.  Do  not  put  Thought  in  prison.  It 
always  escapes  from  it.  Do  not  kill  Thought;  it  always  comes  alive 
again. 

See!  it  has  been  hanged  on  every  gibbet,  it  has  been  nailed  to  every 
pillory;  it  has  lighted  up  all  the  gibbets  with  its  rays,  it  has  illuminated 
all  the  pillories  with  the  fire  of  its  haloes. 

It  has  been  decapitated,  burned,  tortured,  crucified!  Within  walls, 
very  similar  to  ours,  magistrates,  clad  in  the  same  purple  and  capped 
with  headgear  like  the  Attorney-General's  have  crushed  it  beneath 
similar  social  thunderbolts,  in  similar  murderous  periods,  droned  in 
similar  inflections  of  voice,  timed  by  similar  see-saw  gestures;  for,  in 
the  midst  of  evolutions,  revolutions,  cataclysms,  when  all  things  change 
and  when  all  things  crash  together,  immovable  human  justice,  ever- 
lastingly victorious  on  the  eve  and  always  vanquished  on  the  morrow, 
keeps  the  same  pose  and  the  same  physiognomy! 

The  Conciergerie  for  Thought  is  the  ante-chamber  of  the  Pantheon ! 
And  the  magistrates  cannot  go  out  without  passing  the  statue  of  one  of 
their  victims. 

They  believe  they  could  stifle  Thought,  but  the  Thought  flashes 
forth. 

Every  day,  at  the  corners  of  the  crossways,  in  public  places,  the 
Etienne  Dolets  [a  celebrated  French  printer  and  man  of  letters,  burnt 
as  a  heretic,  1546],  crowned  with  immortelles,  smile  in  the  morning 
splendors  that  greet  the  awakening  of  Paris! 

Let  Thought  run  its  course,  gentlemen;  do  not  stop  it.  Defend 
yourselves ;  do  not  persecute. 

Gentlemen,  hear  my  last  appeal;  it  cries  to  you  from  the  depths  of 


LIBERTY  OF  SPEECH  FOR  ANARCHISTS         229 

my  mind,  with  all  the  energy  of  my  faith  and  my  youth;  Jurymen  of 
the  end  of  this  century,  do  not  persecute! — Jean  Grave,  the  Anarchist, 
in  his  own  defense  on  a  charge  for  circulating  literature  denouncing 
the  French  army. 

THE   CASE   OF  JOHN  TURNER 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Labor  Council  last  night,  the  council  adopted  reso- 
lutions condemning  as  an  outrage  the  arrest  of  John  Turner,  chief  or- 
ganizer of  the  Retail  Clerks'  Union  of  England  and  a  member  of  the 
executive  committee  of  the  London  Labor  Council,  for  alleged  disbelief 
in  all  government,  and  denouncing  the  threatened  deportation  of  Mr. 
Turner  as  unconstitutional  and  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  liberty  upon 
which  this  nation  was  founded. — San  Francisco  Labor  Council. 

The  Central  Federated  Union  of  New  York  (composed  of  delegates 
from  local  trades  unions),  at  its  meeting  on  December  13,  1903,  indorsed 
the  resolutions  which  were  adopted  December  3d  by  the  Cooper  Union 
mass  meeting,  protesting  "against  so  much  of  the  Immigration  Law 
as  authorizes  the  exclusion  and  deportation  of  an  alien  solely  because  of 
his  opinions"  and  voted  its  moral  and  financial  support  to  the  Free 
Speech  League  in  its  eJBforts  to  have  that  part  of  the  law  declared  un- 
constitutional by  the  Supreme  Court,  or  failing  that  to  have  it  repealed 
by  Congress. 

The  first  attempt  to  enforce  the  anti-Anarchistic  act,  passed  after  the 
assassination  of  President  McKinley,  is  not  only  ridiculous,  but  alarm- 
ing to  all  who  hold  to  American  ideals  of  personal  liberty.  Turner  has 
made  no  incendiary  utterances  in  this  country;  he  has  not,  in  the  words 
of  the  law,  advocated  the  overthrow  by  force  or  violence  of  all  or  any 
organized  government.  When  he  preaches  the  gospel  of  Anarchy  among 
us  it  would  be  time  to  deport  him.  To  proscribe  him  because  he  may 
have  written  or  talked  elsewhere  against  the  constituted  authority  may 
be  legal;  it  certainly  is  repugnant  to  American  ideals. — New  York 
Evening  Post,  October  24,  1903. 

My  Dear  Sir:  Your  letter  of  December  1st  came  to  Washington  while 
I  was  at  home  in  Massachusetts,  and  has  just  reached  me.  It  is  too  late 
to  answer  it  in  time  for  your  purpose.  I  should  have  said,  if  I  were  to 
write  a  letter  to  be  read  at  your  meeting,  that  I  should  not  approve  any 
law  or  any  construction  of  any  law  that  excluded  persons  from  the  coun- 
try merely  because  they  disbelieved  in  all  organized  government,  unless 
they  also  favored  forcible  resistance  to  all  organized  government.  That 
should  be  cleariy  established,  and  should  not  be  taken  as  established  by 
anybody's  deduction,  as  a  matter  of  logic,  from  what  the  person  who  is 
under  consideration  avows  as  his  belief.     One  of  the  greatest  single 


230  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

causes  of  religious  persecution  and  intolerance  is  the  imputing  to  other 
men  opinions  which  they  themselves  disavow,  but  which  their  opponents 
charge  them  with  because  they  seem  to  the  opponents  the  logical  deduc- 
tion from  what  they  say  they  think.  I  am  not  bound  to  accept  or  submit 
to  what  another  man  thinks  the  logical  consequence  of  what  I  say  or  do. 
— U.  S.  Senator  George  F.  Hoar,  to  Secretary  Free  Speech  League. 

It  would  be  asorry  state  of  affairs  if  there  was  no  one  left  to  protest 
against  these  occasional  abuses  of  the  Constitution,  and  it  is  of  no  conse- 
quence that  the  beneficiary  of  the  outburst  is  in  himself  worthy  of  per- 
sonal regard  or  not.  .  .  . 

Freedom  of  speech  has  its  drawbacks  and  rebates,  but  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  principle  which  supports  it  would  be  disastrous  both  to  good 
government  and  free  institutions.  It  is  a  passion  with  most  men  to 
desire  to  express  their  opinion.  Very  few  of  them  meditate  action  as  a 
consequence  of  their  views.  Having  unloaded,  as  it  were,  they  settle 
back  in  the  knowledge  that  they  have  done  their  duty,  and  leave  the  rest 
to  logic.  The  profoundly  wise  theory  of  this  country  has  been  to  permit 
each  man  or  set  of  men  to  discuss  freely  the  faith  which  moves  them, 
and  the  result  has  been  in  every  case  the  ultimate  establishment  of  a 
truth. 

John  Turner  should  be  released  with  an  apology  and  permitted  to 
talk  to  his  heart's  content.  He  could  not  have  worse  luck  than  Prophet 
Dowie  had. — New  Haven,  Conn.,  Register,  December  5,  1903. 

It  is  easy  to  say,  "  We  want  no  Anarchists  in  this  country,"  but  the 
real  question  is  whether  by  employing  arbitrary  methods  to  keep  out  one 
from  abroad,  we  do  not  breed  a  hundred  at  home.  Repression  of  free 
speech,  unequal  laws,  tremendous  and  vague  powers  lodged  in  the  hands 
of  the  authorities,  have  been  the  recognized  means  of  producing  Anar- 
chists in  foreign  countries,  and  undoubtedly  will  be  here,  if  adopted. 
The  great  trouble  with  the  law  under  which  it  has  been  attempted  to 
exclude  the  Englishman,  Turner,  is  that  it  does  not  precisely  define  his 
offense.  Criminal  laws  can  strike  only  at  acts.  A  "disbelief"  is  some- 
thing impalpable.  How  are  you  going  to  handcuff  a  mental  state  ? 
How  can  Secretary  Cortelyou  prevent  a  thought  from  crossing  the  At- 
lantic ?  The  moment  we  permit  magistrates  or  commissioners  to  begin 
reading  crimes  in  what  a  man  thinks,  as  distinct  from  what  he  says  or 
does,  that  moment  we  imperil  a  government  of  ordered  liberty.  Let 
the  authorities  be  as  severe  as  possible  with  every  crime,  or  incitement 
thereto;  but  let  them  beware  of  taking  their  own  guesses  at  "belief" 
as  proof  of  crime.  No  man  is  safe  if  the  police  may  arrest  for  secret 
thoughts. — New  York  Evening  Post,  December  5,  1903. 


LIBERTY  OF  SPEECH  FOR  ANARCHISTS         231 

Dear  Mr.  Pleydell:  I  sliall  be  grateful  to  you  if  you  w-ill  convey  to  the 
Free  Speech  League,  as  also  to  all  those  who  have  in  any  way  assisted, 
my  very  high  appreciation  of  their  efforts  on  my  behalf.  But  while  I  am 
quite  unable  to  adequately  express  how  I  value  their  personal  feeUng  of 
friendship,  I  am  still  more  concerned  that  the  whole  force  of  pubhc 
opinion  shall  be  brought  to  bear,  with  a  view  to  abrogating  this  law 
under  which  I  was  arrested  and  am  now  detained  for  deportation. 

That  is  the  question  of  principle  to  keep  steadily  in  sight,  and  my  per- 
sonality is  only  incidental  to  it.  Whether  I  am  deported  or  not  makes 
very  little  difference,  but  the  safe  and  p)ermanent  estabUshment  of  this 
measure  means  the  beginning  of  an  era  of  attempted  suppression  of 
opinion,  which  would  soon  menace  every  minority  in  the  United  States. 

What  is  there  about  America  that  can  cause  it  to  fear  the  ideal  of  one 
who  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  France  or  Belgium,  remained  unmo- 
lested ?  Is  the  new  democracy  more  fearful  of  opinions  than  the  older 
European  countries  ?  I  hope,  for  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  honest 
opinion  will  not  be  permanently  barred  out  by  ill-conceived  legislation, 
and  that  lovers  of  liberty  will  not  rest  till  they  have  again  placed  America 
among  those  liberal  countries  who  do  not  use  political  discrimination 
against  the  stranger  at  their  gates. — ^John  Turner,  to  Cooper  Union  Meet- 
ing, December  3,  1903. 

The  mass  meeting  alone  was  enough  to  demonstrate  that  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  clause  of  the  law  under  which  it  is  proposed  to  deport  Mr. 
Turner  is  sure  to  propagate  doctrines  which  the  majority  of  people  deem 
dangerous,  rather  than  to  repress  or  discourage  them.  We  cannot  af- 
ford to  associate  the  principle  of  academic  or  philosophic  Anarchy  with 
the  cause  of  free  thought,  because  free  thought  is  in  itself  enough  to 
sanctify,  in  many  persons'  minds,  the  most  repulsive  heresies.  Forbid 
by  law  the  holding  of  certain  beUefs  and  you  will  surely  popularize  those 
beliefs.  The  long  struggle  for  intellectual  liberty,  from  the  Middle 
Ages  down  to  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth  century,  stands  for  too  much 
agony  and  sacrifice  in  human  history  to  be  repudiated  in  our  own  time. 
The  principle  won  at  such  great  cost  cannot  be  attacked  without  arous- 
ing a  violent  protest,  of  which  the  Cooper  Union  meeting  was  but  the 
first  sign.  ... 

The  labor  unions  of  America,  to  whose  work  and  principles  Mr. 
Turner  has  been  devoted,  might  take  up  this  affair  to  good  advantage 
and  press  it  upon  the  attention  of  Congress.  ... 

The  conclusion  cannot  be  avoided  that  in  prohibiting  the  presence  in 
this  country  of  men  simply  because  they  "  disbelieve  "  in  the  government 
which  exists  in  this  stage  of  civiUzation,  Congress  acted  without  realizing 
the  effect  and  bearing  of  its  legislation.  A  man  like  Turner  cannot  be 
driven  out  of  America,  as  Roger  Williams  was  driven  out  of  Massachu- 


232  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

setts  two  and  one-half  centuries  ago,  without  increasing  his  influence  and 
importance  a  thousand-fold,  and  thus  defeating  the  very  purpose  w^hich 
Congress  had  chiefly  in  mind. — Springfield,  Mass.,  Republican,  Decem- 
ber 6.  1903. 

The  law  under  which  the  immigration  officials  are  holding  John  Tur- 
ner a  prisoner  without  bail,  preparatory  to  deportation,  was  passed  in  a 
senseless  panic,  and  is  as  stupid  a  piece  of  legislation  as  Congress  has 
achieved  for  several  years.  Its  unconstitutionality  is  obvious.  The 
Supreme  Court  may,  perhaps,  say  otherwise,  but  any  law  abridging 
freedom  of  thought  and  speech  is  in  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  Consti- 
tution, and  no  amount  of  legal  sophistry  can  make  it  anything  other  than 
what  it  is. 

This  fool  law  essays  to  pry  into  the  mind  of  a  foreigner  arriving  at  a 
port  of  the  United  States,  and  to  judge  him  by  what  he  believes  or  dis- 
believes. If  he  disbelieves  in  the  wisdom  of  governments,  says  the  law, 
he  is  dangerous  and  must  be  kept  out  of  this  peaceful,  orderly  land,  lest 
he  corrupt  the  minds  of  our  simple  people  or  run  amuck  and  destroy  the 
government. 

Ostensibly  the  law  was  enacted  to  prevent  the  entrance  of  dangerous 
persons,  revolutionary  Anarchists,  bomb-makers,  and  violent  cranks 
generally.  It  was  passed  because  the  country  was  in  hysterics  over  the 
killing  of  a  President,  all  hands  forgetting  that  every  one  of  our  assassins 
up  to  date  was  a  native-born  American.  Of  course,  the  law  would  be 
no  barrier  to  a  really  dangerous  conspirator  who  desired  to  get  into  the 
country  with  evil  intent.  It  is  a  barrier  to  honest,  open-minded  men, 
who  say  what  they  think  and  mean  harm  to  nobody.  It  could  be  in- 
voked to  keep  Herbert  Spencer  from  setting  foot  on  American  soil. 

The  law  making  "  disbelief  "  in  anything  a  disqualification  for  admis- 
sion to  this  country  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution.  If  gov- 
ernment dictate  political  opinion,  it  can  control  religious  belief.  If  it  be 
permitted  to  deport  John  Turner  because  of  his  opinions — ^not  his  acts 
nor  his  character — -there  is  no  constitutional  limit  to  the  power  of  Con- 
gress over  the  speech  and  thought  of  the  individual. 

Besides,  in  applying  the  law  to  a  man  like  Turner,  who  is  an  industrial 
organizer  and  a  man  of  brains  and  character,  this  government  is  making 
a  particularly  conspicuous  exhibition  of  folly,  and,  worse  than  being 
wrong,  is  being  ridiculous. — New  York  Daily  News,  December  4,  1903. 

If  for  no  other  reason  than  that  it  introduces  a  tyrannical  method  of 
procedure,  abhorrent  to  the  spirit  of  our  institutions,  the  law  ought  not 
to  stand.  Its  arbitrariness  recalls  that  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  and  the 
early  Sedition  laws.  Its  enforcement  must  inevitably  be  unequal.  How 
is  the  Government  to  ascertain  the  truth  about  the  hundreds  of  thousands 


LIBERTY  OF  SPEECH  FOR  ANARCHISTS         233 

of  aliens  who  come  to  the  United  States  in  the  course  of  the  prescribed 
three  years  period  of  Hraitation  ?  Are  all  of  them  to  be  detained  until 
the  boards  of  inquisition  shall  have  passed  upon  the  orthodoxy  of  their 
political  beliefs  r  If  not,  prosecution  must  necessarily  be  sporadic  and 
taken  against  selected  victims;  and  such  selections  would  usually  be  in- 
fluenced either  by  the  malice  of  informers  or  by  the  whims  of  the  in- 
quisitors. 

And  how  are  the  beliefs  of  men  to  be  ascertained  ?  With  regard  to  a 
few  persons  of  international  repute,  we  know  their  opinions  on  govern- 
ment through  their  pubUshed  writings.  In  the  case  of  a  Tolstoi  or  a 
Prince  Kropotkin  proofs  would  not  be  needed,  for  such  men  would  ad- 
mit the  heterodoxy  of  their  views  on  the  existing  order  of  society;  it 
follows,  then,  that  the  law  would  be  most  effective  to  exclude  some  of 
the  best  of  the  human  race — men  of  unblamable  lives,  who  would  not 
hurt  a  fly.  Unknown  scalawags,  however,  who  would  not  scruple  to 
swear  falsely  about  their  political  opinions,  would  be  admitted.  The 
law  thus  punishes  veracity  and  puts  a  premium  on  lying.  By  a  singular 
slip,, the  law  excludes  from  its  operations  persons  convicted  of  murder  or 
other  felonies  if  it  appear  that  the  crime  have  been  done  from  "  political " 
but  not  otherwise  immoral  motives,  even  though  the  offenders  be  An- 
archists. On  the  other  hand,  any  alien,  whatever  be  his  beliefs,  though 
they  be  tlie  most  strictly  orthodox,  may  be  denied  entry  if  the  inquisitors 
be  satisfied  that  he  is  affiliated  with  a  society  of  unbelievers.  If  such  a 
one  were  discovered  reading  Proudhon's  **  Property  is  Theft "  at  any  time 
within  three  years  after  landing,  and  this  discovery  should  satisfy  a 
board  of  official  ignoramuses  of  his  affiliation  with  Anarchists,  he  might, 
mlly-nilly,  be  deported  from  this  country! — Philadelphia  Record,  Decem- 
ber 20,  1903. 

There  are  two  classes  of  Anarchists.  In  the  first  are  those  who  dis- 
believe in  organized  government,  who  would  have  society  depend  for 
safety  upon  the  conscience  and  common  sense  of  the  people,  who  would 
bring  the  world  to  their  way  of  thinking  through  the  educational  agencies 
of  the  printing  press  and  the  platform.  To  this  class  belongs  John  Turn- 
er, an  Englishman  arrested  in  New  York  City  for  preaching  his  doctrine. 
[This  is  an  error;  the  warrant  was  issued  before  he  had  spoken,  and 
was  served  while  he  was  speaking  about  labor  unions  and  strikes. — Free 
Speech  League.]  The  other  class  includes  the  Czolgoszes  and  the 
Lucchenis,  the  men  who  think  that  whatever  is  is  wrong,  that  the  only 
arguments  available  against  government  are  the  dagger,  the  pistol,  and 
the  dynamite  bomb.  Anarchists  of  the  first  class  are  harmless  theorists, 
who  iiave  an  undeniable  right  to  hold  and  to  publish  opinions  which,  to 
the  great  majority  of  us,  appear  hopelessly  mistaken.  Anarchists  of  the 
second  class  are  human  wolves,  deserving  of  no  toleration  whatever 


234  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Ishmaels  whose  hands  are  against  every  man  and  against  whom  the  hand 
of  every  man  should  be  set. 

We  have  a  law  passed  to  prevent  the  landing  of  Anarchists  in  this 
country  and  to  provide  for  their  arrest  and  deportation  should  they  hap- 
pen to  effect  a  landing  in  spite  of  it.  The  law  is  good  in  purpose,  inas- 
much as  if  was  adopted  primarily  to  shut  out  the  vicious  agitators  whose 
gospel  is  violence  and  whose  creed  is  uncompromising  hostility  to  law. 
The  Eagle  believes  that  these  people  should  be  barred  from  every  Amer- 
ican port,  that  their  presence  here  is  an  incitement  to  conspiracy,  sedi- 
tion, and  assassination.  But  between  these  Anarchists  of  the  second 
class  and  the  Anarchists  of  the  first  there  is  a  broad  and  vital  distinction. 
The  application  of  the  law  to  the  latter  is  tantamount  to  the  restriction 
of  honest  thought  and  to  the  restraint  of  inoffensive  speech.  It  is  the 
suppression  by  the  government  of  the  United  States  of  opinions  that  are 
not  more  threatening  to  the  peace  and  comfort  of  society  than  are  the 
varying  views  of  church  members  on  the  eucharist  or  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants. The  mass  meeting  held  at  Cooper  Union  last  night  to  protest 
against  the  deportation  of  Turner  was  marked  by  the  receipt  of  a  letter 
from  Edward  M.  Shepard,  in  which  the  law  was  characterized  as  "tyr- 
annical and  stupid."  Both  it  certainly  is  in  its  present  application. 
The  need  of  a  statute  that  will  shut  the  nation 's  door  to  all  who  come 
with  the  avowed  intention  of  urging  the  overturn  of  government  by  forc- 
ible methods  is  obvious  and  unquestioned ;  but  when  that  statute  is  so 
loosely  framed  that  a  Cabinet  officer  may  enforce  it  to  the  exclusion  of 
those  who  are  not  peripatetic  fire-brands,  it  is  high  time  that  some  sen- 
sible man  arose  in  Congress  and  suggested  its  amendment.  The  task 
should  not  be  difficult  when  the  legislative  intelligence  grasps  the  radical 
difference  between  the  "mild"  Anarchist  and  the  "Red." — Brooklyn 
Eagle,  December  4,  1903. 

How  many  Americans  know  that  a  law  of  the  United  States  forbids 
admission  to  this  country  of  any  person  "who  disbeheves  in  or  who  is 
opposed  to  all  organized  government,  or  who  is  a  member  of  or  affiliated 
with  any  organization  entertaining  or  teaching  such  disbelief  in  or  oppo- 
sition to  all  organized  government "  ?  It  has  been  supposed  that  the 
American  was  born  to  a  heritage  of  freedom  of  belief,  and  that  he  was 
guaranteed  the  right  of  freedom  of  speech  so  long  as  he  did  not  slander 
or  incite  to  violence.  That  the  national  government  could  proscribe 
any  class  of  philosophical  opinions,  however  reprehensible  in  themselves, 
would  not  have  been  believed  in  this  country  a  generation  ago.  .  .  . 

It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  defend  these  doctrines  in  ever  so  slight 
a  degree  before  protesting  against  a  law  that  proscribes  opinion  and  its 
reasonable  expression.  Let  opinions  be  beyond  any  doubt  reprehen- 
sible ;  they  cannot  be  eradicated  or  suppressed  by  a  governmental  policy. 


LIBERTY  OF  SPEECH  FOR  ANARCHISTS         235 

Wrong  opinion  can  be  overthrown  only  in  the  atmosphere  of  freedom. 
It  must  come  to  the  Hght  in  frank  expression,  and  be  attacked  by  the 
weapons  of  reason  and  conscience.  The  whole  history  of  civilization  is  a 
demonstration  of  the  superior  wisdom  of  imtrammelled  discussion.  As 
we  have  more  than  once  remarked  in  these  columns,  the  postulate  upon 
which  the  whole  doctrine  of  repression  rests  is  inherently  absurd.  It  is 
the  assumption  that  mankind  is  not,  on  the  whole  and  in  the  long  run, 
amenable  to  reason  and  sensitive  to  moral  appeal.  If  this  were  true,  popu- 
lar government  would  be  in  the  nature  of  things  impossible,  and  the 
stupendous  social  mechanism  of  church  and  university,  with  all  the 
agencies  that  they  are  bringing  to  bear  upon  the  conduct  of  men,  would 
be  both  meaningless  and  futile. 

A  case  has  arisen  that  we  earnestly  hope  will  be  carried  through  to  a 
decision  by  the  Supreme  Court.  John  Turner,  an  EngUsh  Anarchist, 
is  held  at  Ellis  Island  because  of  utterances  in  England  and  elsewhere 
that  come  within  the  mala  prohibita  of  this  reactionary  law.  Happily, 
it  has  aroused  a  vigorous  protest  by  men  whose  words  carry  weight  in 
the  community.  A  great  mass  meeting  was  held  at  Cooper  Union  a  few 
nights  ago  to  voice  their  opposition.  Edward  M.  Shepard  sent  a  fearless 
and  manly  letter  that  admirably  stated  the  true  American  doctrine  of 
hberty  of  thought,  and  John  De  Witt  Warner  placed  himself  on  record 
in  a  speech  marked  by  breadth  and  good  sense.  The  list  of  vice-presi- 
dents of  the  meeting  included  many  of  the  most  eminent  and  respectable 
names  in  thought  and  affairs  in  New  York  City. 

We  were  sorry  to  see  Bishop  Potter  in  a  public  address  a  day  or  two 
after  taking  the  position  that  no  one  "  could  blame  the  Government  for 
excluding  a  man  from  this  country  who  boasted  that  he  did  not  believe 
in  any  Government."  With  Bishop  Potter  objecting  to  liberty  of  opin- 
ion, and  Bishop  Burgess  characterizing  Wagner's  "  Parsifal "  as  sacrile- 
gious, it  would  seem  that  the  people  must  for  the  present  look  to  others 
than  our  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  for  the  wisest  guidance  in  matters  that 
pertain  to  the  great  things  of  hberty  and  ideaUsm. — TJie  Independent, 
New  York,  December  10,  1903. 

A  mass  meeting  was  held  in  Cooper  Union,  New  York,  December  3, 
1903,  to  protest  against  those  provisions  of  the  Immigration  Law  which 
exclude  aliens  solely  because  of  disbelief  in  organized  government,  and 
under  which  John  Turner  was  arrested  and  is  now  detained  at  Ellis 
Island,  and  is  threatened  with  deportation  unless  the  Supreme  Court 
declares  the  law  unconstitutional. 

Chairman,  John  S.  Crosby.  Vice-Presidents:  Felix  Adler,  Wm.  H. 
Baldwin,  Jr.,  W.  Franklin  Brush,  A.  J.  Boulton,  James  B}'me,  Ernest 
H.  Crosby,  Horace  E.  Deming,  Henry  George,  Jr.,  Prof.  Franklin  H. 
Giddings,  Rev.  Thos.  C.  Hall,  E.  W.'  Ordway,  Jos.  M.  Price,  Lawson 


236  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Purdy,  Paul  Revere  Reynolds,  Wm,  Jay  Schieffelin,  Carl  Schurz,  Judge 
Samuel  Seabury,  Henry  D.  Sedgwick,  Jr.,  George  F.  Seward,  Charles 
Sprague  Smith,  Chas.  B.  Spahr,  Oswald  G.  Villard,  John  DeWitt  Warner,. 
Chas.  W.  Watson,  Richard  W.  G.  Welling,  Horace  White,  Rev.  Leighton 
Williams,  Mornay  Williams. 

The  speakers  were  former  Congressman  John  DeWitt  Warner,  Ernest 
H.  Crosby,  Rev.  Henry  Frank,  and  Congressman  Robert  Baker  from, 
the  Sixth  District,  New  York. 

Letters  approving  the  purpose  of  the  meeting  protesting  against  ex- 
clusion of  persons  for  disbelief  were  read  from  Edward  M.  Shepard, 
Wm.  Lloyd  Garrison,  Alfred  J.  Boulton,  Chas.  Sprague  Smith,  and  Rev. 
Thos.  C.  Hall. 

The  following  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  : 

Whereas,  History  shows  that  whatever  evils  accompany  freedom  of 
speech  and  of  opinion,  permanence  of  popular  government  can  be  main- 
tained only  by  their  exercise,  and  that  no  error  need  be  feared  where 
truth  is  free  to  combat  it,  and 

Whereas,  Our  constitutions  secure  freedom  of  thought  and  speech  to 
us  and  their  spirit  should  assure  the  same  rights  to  aliens,  and 

Whereas,  Russia,  which  excludes  political  opponents  and  represses 
free  thought  and  free  speech  at  home,  has  suffered  more  than  any  other 
Christian  nation  from  violence  and  assassination,  while  England,  which 
for  sixty  years  has  received  and  protected  all  kinds  of  political  exiles, 
repealing  or  permitting  to  grow  obsolete  her  own  repressive  laws,  alone 
has  maintained  complete  internal  peace  (except  in  the  case  of  Ireland, 
where  repression  was  used),  and  has  been  free  from  revolutionary  agi- 
tation, and 

Whereas,  These  examples  demonstrate  that  repression  tends  to  en- 
courage and  freedom  to  prevent  bloodshed  and  violence,  therefore. 

Resolved,  That  we,  citizens  of  New  York,  protest  against  so  much  of 
the  Immigration  Law  as  authorizes  the  exclusion  and  deportation  of  an 
alien  solely  because  of  his  opinions,  believing  that  this  provision  of  law 
is  illiberal,  unjust,  and  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and  that 
it  tends  to  the  creation  and  encouragement  of  the  evils  it  is  intended  to 
prevent. 

Resolved,  That  we  recommend  that  petitions  be  addressed  to  Congress 
asking  that  the  portion  of  the  law  against  which  we  protest  be  repealed. 

And  Whereas,  John  Turner,  a  citizen  of  England,  is  imprisoned  un- 
der this  act  solely  for  his  opinions,  and  is  denied  the  right  of  private  con- 
sultation with  counsel,  and  permission  to  see  friends,  and  is  guarded  and 
confined  as  though  convicted  of  a  crime,  although  he  is  staying  volunta- 
rily in  order  to  test  the  law. 

Resolved,  That  we  protest  against  such  treatment  and  against  the 
"a<^lministrative  process"  by  which  Turner  was  arrested  and  is  detained. 


LIBERTY  OF  SPEECH  FOR  ANARCHISTS         237 

Resolved,  That  we  believe  such  arbitrary  imprisonments  to  be  against 
the  will  of  our  people,  and  that  in  the  end  the  United  States  will  not  yield 
to  England  in  the  jealousy  with  which  she  guards  freedom  of  thought 
and  speech. 

I  am  not  able  to  accept  the  invitation  to  speak  at  the  meeting  this  even- 
ing to  protest  against  the  deportation  of  John  Turner.  But  I  feel  bound 
to  express  my  deep  sympathy  with  the  purpose  of  the  meeting,  which  I 
understand  to  be  the  promotion  of  sound,  orderly,  law-abiding  freedom. 

I  do  not  know  Mr.  Turner;  nor  do  I  know  anything  of  his  speeches 
writings,  or  beHefs  except  as  they  appear  in  the  proceedings  against  him'. 
They  have  now  resulted  in  the  order  of  a  cabinet  officer  of  our  Repubhc 
that  he  be  excluded  by  force  from  our  country  for  beheving  in  a  theory 
of  human  society  different  from  that  held  by  you  and  me  and  the  great 
majority  of  Americans  and  other  civilized  men,  and  in  an  order  of  a 
federal  court  that  there  is  no  judicial  power  to  interfere  Anth  that  order. 
To  my  mind  the  order  of  Secretary  Cortelyou  is  thoroughly  un-American 
and  is  dangerous  to  the  future  prosperity,  and  dishonors  the  true  and 
useful  glory,  of  our  Repubhc. 

In  the  brief  submitted  to  Judge  Lacombe  in  behalf  of  the  government 
no  assertion,  not  even  a  hint,  is  made  against  Mr,  Turner's  character. 
He  is  not  accused  of  desiring  or  seeking  violence.  The  whole  charge 
is  that  he  has  called  himself  an  Anarchist.  The  able  contention  of  his 
counsel  is  not  disputed  that  he  is  an  Anarchist  only  in  the  sense  of  those 
who  beUeve  that  peace  and  virtue  and  happiness  do  not  need  the  exercise 
of  governmental  force. 

The  sole  defense  of  the  Grovernment  is  that  Mr.  Turner  "  disbeHeves 
in  all  organized  government."  Secretary  Cortelyou  applies  a  statute 
evidently  intended  to  exclude  persons  who  threaten  violence,  or  murder, 
to  the  case  of  a  man  merely  holding  in  his  own  conscience  and  mind, 
and  who  in  the  freedom  of  his  own  England  has  expressed,  a  belief  that 
human  progress  and  safety  do  not  need  the  aid  of  armies  or  pohce.  In 
my  opinion,  the  conclusion  of  the  Commissioner  of  Immigration  and  of 
his  Board  ought  never  to  have  been  permitted  by  the  Administration. 
Upon  every  theory  of  constitutional  or  statutory  interpretation  prevail- 
ing in  our  country,  the  statute  ought  to  have  been  interpreted  strictly  to 
favor  and  not  to  disfavor  freedom  of  opinion. 

I  must  frankly  say  that  the  action  of  Secretary  Cortelyou  seems  to  me 
to  have  been  only  of  a  piece  with  much  else  indicating  a  temper  in  our 
administration  and  possibly  (though  I  beheve  not)  for  a  time  dominant  in 
American  life,  of  hostility  to  freedom  and  favoring  those  narrow,  arbi- 
trary, obstructive,  militaristic  theories  of  public  administration  against 
which  the  very  birth  of  our  Republic  was  a  protest,  theories  which  all 


238  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

countries,  as  they  have  grown  more  intelligent  and  more  prosperous, 
have  left  behind. 

Is  it  not  intolerable  that  our  Government  should  admit  freely  a  man 
who  believes  in  despotism,  religious  persecution,  or  who  supports  polyg- 
amy (for  mere  beUef  in  polygamy  does  not  exclude) ;  but  that,  on  the 
other  hand,  men  should  be  excluded  for  holding  doctrines  long  preached 
and  even  practised  by  many  of  the  Quakers  and  other  sects  greatly  re- 
spected by  us  all,  doctrines  held  to-day  by  Tolstoi — doctrines  the  very 
holding  of  which  implies  a  certain  nobility  and  generosity  of  temper  and 
faith  ?  For  me  those  beliefs  are  as  yet  impracticable  and  unsound ;  but 
I  am  far  from  saying  or  believing  that  they  are  more  impracticable  than 
much  of  the  doctrine  formulated  in  the  .Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

Has  not  America,  has  not  civilization,  come  to  everything  now  dear  to 
them,  to  everything  upon  which  their  civihzation  and  happiness  depend, 
through  the  triumph  of  beliefs  which  were  once  odious  and  once  treated 
as  criminal,  and  for  which  men  were  deported  and  even  burnt  and  cru- 
cified ?  Because  Mr.  Turner's  belief  is  very  far  from  mine,  who  am  T 
that  I  shall  say  that,  in  the  ages  to  come,  he  shall  not  be  found  right  and 
I  wrong!  Who  are  Secretary  Cortelyou  and  the  Commissioner  of  Im- 
migration and  the  rest  of  the  great  majority  (including  myself),  that  we 
should  assert  that  we  better  know  the  truth  than  the  majorities  just  as 
virtuous  as  we  are,  who  in  other  ages  burnt  saints  and  bade  the  leaders 
and  thinkers  and  saviors  of  mankind  to  be  dumb  ? — Hon.  Edward  M. 
Shepard,  in  letter  to  Cooper  Union  Meeting. 

Last  week  a  remarkable  number  of  prominent  citizens  of  New  York 
risked  popular  misconstruction  of  their  views  in  order  to  protest  against 
so  much  of  the  new  immigration  law  as  requires  the  arrest  and  deporta- 
tion of  immigrants  who  "disbelieve  in  organized  government."  Vital 
public  interest  in  this  statute,  it  will  be  recalled,  was  aroused  by  the  ar- 
rest of  John  Turner,  an  English  trades  unionist,  while  addressing  a 
meeting  in  this  city  the  latter  part  of  October.  Turner  was  tried  before 
the  Federal  Board  of  Inquiry  without  counsel  or  witnesses,  and  his 
deportation  ordered  solely  because  he  answered  in  the  affirmative  when 
asked  if  he  was  an  Anarchist.  It  was  not  alleged  that  he  had  approached 
any  nearer  to  the  advocacy  of  violence  than  by  expressing  satisfaction 
that  the  workers  of  Europe  were  organizing  for  a  general  strike  to  obtain 
their  rights.  .  .  . 

The  inquiry  into  Turner's  personality  proved  him  to  have  been  an 
organizer  of  the  English  Shop  Assistants'  (retail  clerks)  Union,  a  man 
with  a  refined  and  attractive  face,  who  had  for  years  addressed  meetings 
in  England  A\nthout  ever  having  been  the  subject  of  arrest.  His  arrest 
here  he  accepted  with  equanimity,  and  when  asked  whether  he  was 
willing  to  remain  in  prison  in  order  to  make  possible  a  test  of  the  con- 


LIBERTY  OF  SPEECH  FOR  ANARCHISTS         239 

stitutionality  of  the  law  under  which  he  was  arrested,  he  cheerfully  de- 
cided to  remain.  This  attitude  on  his  part  gave  to  manv  people  new 
personal  interest  in  liis  case,  and  when  a  meeting  was  called  last  week  to 
protest  against  the  statute  under  which  he  had  been  arrested,  the  hall 
of  Cooper  Union  was  packed  with  sympathizers.  Nearly  half  the  audi- 
ence appeared  to  sympathize  with  most  of  the  views  of  Turner,  indicat- 
ing that  already  his  arrest  was  having  the  effect  of  making  more  popular 
the  visionary  ideas  proscribed.  Had  Turner  addressed  audiences  in 
every  city  and  town  in  this  country,  his  arraignment  of  organized  govern- 
ment could  not  have  aroused  the  discontent  with  such  government  that 
the  single  act  of  his  arrest  had  stirred. 

Fortunately,  the  speakers  at  the  meeting  all  kept  on  strong  conserva- 
tive ground.  Ex-Congressman  John  De  Witt  Warner,  the  first  speaker, 
reviewed  the  various  features  of  the  new  law,  and  contrasted  them  to 
their  disadvantage  with  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Laws,  a  century  ago, 
which  brought  down  upon  the  Federalist  party  the  indignation  of  the 
American  public.  He  admitted  that  there  was  no  express  provision  in 
the  Constitution  forbidding  laws  abridging  freedom  of  thought,  but  said 
that  the  absence  of  such  a  provision  was  because  the  framers  of  the  Con- 
stitution, who  guarded  so  jealously  freedom  of  speech,  never  conceived 
that  any  of  their  descendants  would  attempt  to  restrict  the  freedom  of 
thought.  Not  only  did  he  arraign  the  section  of  the  new  immigration 
law  penalizing  disbelief  in  organized  government  (unaccompanied  by 
any  advocacy  of  disorder),  but  also  those  sections  providing  for  trial  by 
executive  processes  without  the  presence  of  judge,  jury,  or  counsel. 
Under  the  statute,  he  pointed  out,  any  American  who  in  any  way  abetted 
the  presence  of  Count  Tolstoi  or  Prince  Kropotkin  in  this  country  could 
be  fined  five  thousand  dollars  or  imprisoned  for  one  year,  or  both. 
Mr.  Ernest  Crosby  recalled  the  utterances  of  one  great  American  after 
another  who  had  condemned  organized  government  in  sentences  hardly 
less  radical  than  those  which  Turner  had  used;  Henry  D.  Thoreau, 
Ralph  Waldo  Emerson,  and  Thomas  Jefferson  were  among  those  whose 
condemnations  of  government  by  force  were  read  with  telling  effect. 

The  Outlook  is  in  entire  sympathy  with  the  resolution  passed  at  this 
mass  meeting  which  calls  upon  Americans  everywhere  to  petition  Con- 
gress for  an  amendment  of  the  immigration  law  so  that  it  shall  concern, 
in  so  far  as  it  concerns  political  immigrants  at  all,  only  those  immigrants 
who  advocate  the  use  of  violence  or  force  to  overthrow  existing  govern- 
ment. In  other  words,  we  think  that  the  law  should  recognize  the  very 
clear  distinction  between  the  man  who  believes  that  no  government  is 
an  ideal  state  of  society  to  be  achieved  by  persuasion  and  education — 
that  is,  the  Philosophical  Anarchist;  and  the  man  who  believes  in  de- 
stroying by  fire  and  dynamite  the  present  structure  of  society  and  build- 
ing something  in  its  place — that  is,  the  Destructive  Anarchist. — The 
Outlook,  New  York,  December  12,  1903. 


240  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

There  is  something  wrong  with  the  American  people— Americans  of 
the  older  stock.  They  are  no  longer  quick  to  perceive  and  keen  to  re- 
sent invasions  of  the  rights  for  which  their  forefathers  fought. 

One  of  the  speakers  at  the  Cooper  Union  meeting  on  Thursday  night 
said  he  feared  that  Americans  have  forgotten  what  Liberty  means.  He 
called  attention  to  the  significant  absence  from  the  meeting  of  the  clergy, 
leading  merchants,  judges,  the  Mayor,  the  patriotic  sons  and  daughters 
of  this,  that  and  t'  other — the  representatives  of  that  element  of  society 
which  calls  itself  "  better  "  and  claims  a  monopoly  of  virtue  and  patriot- 
ism— and  he  charged  them  all  with  being  recreant  to  the  faith  of  their 
fathers. 

The  indictment  was  severe,  but  it  was  a  true  bill.  Except  a  few 
earnest  men  and  women  on  the  platform,  there  was  hardly  a  sprinkling 
of  old-fashioned  Americans  in  the  hall.  As  one  of  the  morning  papers 
said,  wath  half  a  sneer,  the  audience  "was  reciniited  mainly  from  the 
lower  East  Side."  Perhaps  that  is  why  most  of  them  deemed  it  safe  to 
report  the  meeting  falsely  and  to  assert  in  stupid  headlines  that  it  was  a 
demonstration  in  defense,  favor,  and  support  of  Anarchists  and  Anarchy. 

It  was  such  a  meeting  as  might  have  been  held  in  New  York  more 
than  a  century  ago  to  protest  against  the  alien  and  sedition  laws,  or  in 
Boston  before  that  to  denounce  the  tyranny  of  an  English  King.  It  was 
called  in  defense  of  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  American  citizen,  the 
rights  of  free  thought,  free  speech,  and  pubhc  trial  by  judge  and  jury 
under  the  forms  and  safeguards  of  the  common  law. 

It  was  a  meeting  called  to  protest  against  and  demand  the  repeal  of  a 
law  so  invasive  of  those  American  rights  as  to  wring  from  the  indignant 
John  De  Witt  Warner  this  startling  challenge  to  authority:  "We  will 
resist  to  the  death  our  government,  or  any  other  government,  that  at- 
tempts to  penalize  free  thought  and  free  speech  by  enforcing  such  a  law 
as  this." 

The  meeting  was  not  attended  by  the  people  who  go  to  the  opera  and 
the  Horse  Show,  nor  even  by  those  who  make  up  the  audiences  at  mu- 
nicipal "reform"  soirees  and  political  pink  teas.  It  was  reported  in- 
adequately by  most  papers,  stupidly  by  several,  falsely  and  malignantly 
by  one,  and  timidly  by  the  biggest  braggart  of  the  lot.  It  was  so  treated 
by  the  press  because  the  American  press  has  reason  to  know  that  the 
American  people  have  chloroformed  their  national  conscience  and  do 
not  care  a  rap  for  the  ideas  to  which  their  forefathers  pledged  their  lives, 
their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honor. 

The  audience  was  "recruited  mainly  from  the  lower  East  Side,"  and 
in  that  fact  may  be  found  hope  for  the  future  of  the  repubUc.  It  was  an 
earnest,  alert,  intelligent  audience,  of  much  quicker,  keener  intelligence 
than  could  have  been  found  that  night  in  any  other  place  of  public 
gathering  in  .all  New  York.     It  knew  what  ideas  such  names  as  Guizot, 


LIBERTY  OF  SPEECH  FOR  ANARCHISTS         241 

Reclus,  Thoreau,  Emerson,  and  Spencer  stand  for,  and  quickly  appre- 
ciated the  slightest  allusions  to  them. 

More  than  all,  that  audience  knew  the  meaning  of  "administrative 
process,"  knew  what  dangers  to  the  citizens  lie  in  any  curtailment  of  the 
right  of  free  speech,  and  had  a  living,  human  grasp  of  those  principles 
and  ideals  which  have  become  mere  academic  platitudes  to  too  many  of 
us.  It  was  an  audience  composed  largely  of  persons  of  foreign  birth  or 
parentage,  and  it  was  more  truly  American  in  spirit  than  any  [other] 
crowd  which  has  been  seen  in  Cooper  Union  for  some  time. 

Curious,  is  it  not  ?  While  Americans  are  prating  solemnly  of  the  evils 
of  immigration  and  devising  barriers  to  keep  aliens  out  of  the  country, 
the  immigrants  are  defending  American  principles,  keeping  alive  the 
American  ideal,  and  jealously  guarding  American  rights  from  invasion 
by  the  perverted  machinery  of  American  government. 

To  the  man  or  woman  of  Europe  who  comes  to  America  as  to  the 
home  of  freedom,  the  land  of  equal  opportunity,  the  word  "  liberty  **  is 
full  of  vital  meaning  and  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  not  an 
obsolete  farrago  of  fine  phrases.  It  is  the  victim  of  oppressive  govern- 
ment who  knows  best  what  John  Hay  meant  when  he  wrote,  long  ago, 
it  is  true :  "  For  ever  in  thine  eyes,  O  Liberty,  shines  that  high  light 
whereby  the  world  is  saved,  and,  though  thou  slay  us,  we  ^^^ll  trust  in 
thee." 

Americans  have  forgotten  what  tyranny  is,  and  they  do  not  realize 
that  any  rights  are  being  taken  from  them.  They  are  too  busy  just  now 
to  take  thought  of  such  a  trifle  as  freedom  of  speech,  conscious,  perhaps, 
of  being  able  to  recover  anything  of  which  they  may  be  robbed  whenever 
they  find  it  convenient  or  necessary  to  do  so ;  but  it  is  well  that  the  "  lower 
East  Side  "  does  not  forget  so  readily.— New  York  Daily  News,  Decem- 
ber 5,  1903. 

The  mass  meeting  held  at  Cooper  Union  last  evening  was  called  to- 
gether to  protest  against  an  un-American  law  which  is  aimed  at  an  opin- 
ion, or  a  state  of  mind.  Under  one  of  its  provisions,  John  Turner,  a 
theoretical  Anarchist,  is  detained  at  Ellis  Island,  and  would  have  been 
sent  back  to  England  ere  this  had  not  his  lawyers  begun  proceedings  to 
test  the  constitutionality  of  the  law.  As  we  have  already  pointed  out, 
Mr.  Turner  was  arrested  in  true  Russian  style,  while  making  an  address 
upon  trade  unionism  at  a  hall  in  this  city.  The  sole  reason  for  the  in- 
terference of  the  Federal  authorities,  by  direction  of  Secretarj'  Cortelyou, 
was  some  speeches  which  Mr.  Turner  had  delivered  in  England,  and  to 
which  the  British  authorities  had  never  deemed  it  worth  while  to  pay 
anv  attention.  Under  this  law,  the  gifted  Prince  Kropotkin,  who  was 
entertained  at  some  of  the  best  homes  in  this  city  a  year  or  tsvo  ago, 
could  be  turned  back  at  the  pier— not  because  he  has  ever  advocated  a 


«42  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

resort  to  violence  or  a  physical  atteck  upon  governments  as  now  organ- 
ized, but  because  he  is  a  disbeliever  in  government  based  upon  force, 
Tolstoi  himself  would  probably  be  barred  out. 

The  objectionable  clause  of  the  law  passed  on  March  3d  of  this  year  is 
numbered  38.  It  prescribes  that  no  person  shall  be  permitted  to  enter 
the  United  States  "who  disbelieves  in  or  who  is  opposed  to  all  organized 
government,  or  who  is  a  member  of  or  aflBliated  with  any  organization 
entertaining  or  teaching  such  disbelief  in  or  opposition  to  all  organized 
government,  or  who  advocates  or  teaches  the  duty,  necessity,  or  pro- 
priety of  the  unlawful  assaulting  or  killing  of  any  officer  or  officers, 
either  of  specific  individuals  or  of  officers  generally  of  the  government  of 
the  United  States  or  of  any  other  organized  government,  because  of  his 
or  their  official  character.  ..."  Plainly,  the  intention  of  the  framers 
of  this  law  was  to  exclude  Anarchists  who  land  upon  the  docks  with 
bombs  in  their  right  hands  and  daggers  in  their  left.  With  this  aim  no 
one  will  quarrel.  But  as  the  law  is  drawn,  it  not  only,  as  was  well  said 
last  night,  places  high-minded  and  well-intentioned*  men  of  the  Kropotkin 
type  on  the  same  plane  with  the  midnight  assassin  and  the  dynamiter,  but 
"attacks  every  principle  of  free  thought,  let  alone  free  speech,  that  our 
land  has  held  sacred." 

If  there  is  one  ideal  associated  with  the  history  of  the  United  States  it 
is  the  right  to  free  thought  and  free  speech.  There  was  no  other  motive 
behind  the  coming  of  the  Pilgrims  than  the  desire  freely  to  worship  as 
they  pleased.  Since  their  day  the  United  States  has  seen  one  fantastic 
theory  of  government  after  another  proposed  and  championed  in  all 
seriousness.  The  Quakers,  it  must  not  be  forgotten,  like  John  Turner, 
advocated  a  government  which  should  not  be  founded  on  force.  Com- 
munism in  a  dozen  different  forms  has  been  not  only  urged,  but  actually 
attempted. 

These  experiments  involved  the  breaking  down  of  organized  govern- 
ment as  that  term  is  universally  understood.  Yet  the  men  who  preached 
and  practised  these  vagarious  doctrines  were  never  arrested  or  punished 
for  their  beliefs,  nor  were  their  recruits  turned  back  when  en  route  from 
foreign  shores.  The  wise  and  far-sighted  American  policy  has  been  to 
let  Communists  and  Socialists  of  one  school  or  another  have  their  say. 
The  country  has  recognized  that  free  speech  is  the  best  safety-valve  in 
any  free  land.  It  has  hitherto  always  declined  to  follow  the  example 
of  the  French  republic  in  punishing  men  for  their  political  views. 

It  seemed,  moreover,  to  have  profited  by  the  experience  of  other  lands, 
notably  Russia  and  Germany.  Whenever  those  nations  have  sought  to 
put  down  the  men  who  taught  the  overthrow  of  modem  governments 
by  force,  they  have  signally  failed.  Where  one  man  has  gone  to  Siberia 
for  his  beliefs  or  died  in  the  dungeons  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  another 
— and  often  two — has  risen  to  take  his  place.     All  the  autocratic  powers 


LIBERTY  OF  SPEECH  FOR  ANARCHISTS         243 

of  the  Emperor  of  Germany  and  his  government  have  availed  Rothing 
in  the  attempt  to  stop  the  growth  of  Anarchistic  doctrine.  There  are 
checks  in  plenty  to  the  spread  of  such  a  pernicious  and  unreasoning  pro- 
paganda, but  they  include  neither  chains  nor  banishment  nor  the  scaf- 
fold. Why  should  the  United  States  seek,  then,  to  deny  its  shores  to 
peaceful  men  who  conscientiously  believe  that  the  government  of  the 
future  is  to  rest  upon  an  entirely  different  foundation  from  that  which 
now  supports  it  ?  And  what,  if  the  line  is  now  drawn  at  men  who  call 
themselves  Anarchists,  is  to  prevent  another  Congress,  stampeded  per- 
haps by  the  assassination  of  a  high  official,  from  proscribing  men  known 
as  Socialists,  either  of  the  radical  or  of  the  moderate  German  type  ?  In 
this  as  in  other  matters  it  is  the  first  step  that  costs.  If  the  act  of  a  crazy 
native-born  assassin  can  move  Congress  to  expel  or  deport  foreign  visi- 
tors for  their  opinions  and  forbid  their  naturalization,  to  what  lengths 
would  it  go  if  goaded  on  by  a  similar  assassin  of  foreign  birth  ?  As  Mr. 
Shepard  asked,  why  single  out  men  who  have  philosophic  theories  of 
government  and  overlook  men  who  believe  in  despotism,  religious  per- 
secution, or  polygamy?  As  for  those  who  believe  in  government  by 
oligarchy,  the  United  States  would  have  its  hands  full  to  expatriate  those 
who  seem,  at  least  by  their  actions,  to  prefer  this  form  of  government. 

The  truth  is  that  the  statute  as  now  worded,  whether  intentionally  or 
because  of  carelessness,  savors  of  the  Middle  Ages,  of  the  days  of  re- 
ligious intolerance  and  persecution,  and  is  a  blot  upon  the  country's 
good  name.  It  puts  sweeping  powers  into  the  hands  of  a  government 
official  which  he  ought  never  to  possess,  and  cannot  be  trusted  with,  as 
Secretary  Cortelyou  has  shown.  It  will  inevitably  bring  with  it  a  system 
of  espionage  at  home  and  abroad.  It  involves  already  deportation  at 
a  secret  hearing  in  which  the  accused  man  is  made  the  main  witness 
against  himself;  and  from  the  decision  of  a  commissioner  he  has  no  ap- 
peal save  to  a  Cabinet  officer.  The  wrong  is  plainly  so  monstrous  that 
Congress  cannot  refuse  to  amend  the  law  so  that  it  shall  apply  only  to 
those  persons  who  come  here  advocating  the  commission  of  violent 
crimes.  If  the  case  is  fairly  and  clearly  presented,  we  are  confident  that 
few  Congressmen  will  wish  to  go  on  record  as  opposed  to  freedom  of 
behef  and  utterance. — New  York  Evening  Post,  December  4,  1903. 

That  the  state  is  a  separate  entity  is  a  mere  fiction  of  the  law,  which 
is  useful  within  the  very  narrow  limit  of  the  necessities  which  called  it 
into  existence.  This  is  judicially  recognized  by  our  courts  and  by 
thoughtful  laymen.  By  getting  behind  the  fiction,  to  view  the  naked 
fact,  we  discover  that  the  state  has  no  existence  except  as  a  few  fal- 
lible office-holders,  theoretically  representing  the  public  sentiment, 
expressing  its  power,  sometimes  doing  good  and  often  thriving  on  the 
ignorance  and  indifference  of  the  masses.     When  we  abolished  the 


244  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

infallibility  of  rulers  by  divine  right,  we  at  the  same  time  abolished 
the  political  duty  of  believing  either  in  God  or  what  was  theretofore 
supposed  to  be  his  political  creation,  the  State. 

\k  Henceforth  government  was  to  be  viewed  only  as  a  human  expedient 
to  accomplish  purely  secular  human  ends,  and  subject  to  be  trans- 
formed or  abolished  at  the  will  and  discretion  of  those  by  whose  will 
and  discretion  it  was  created  and  is  maintained.  The  exclusively 
secular  ends  of  government  were  to  protect  each  equally  in  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  So  the  fathers  of  our  country  in  their 
Declaration  of  Independence  wrote  that:  "Whenever  any  form  of 
government  becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the 
people  to  alter  or  abolish  it."  Similar  declarations  were  made  by  the 
separate  colonies.  Thus  the  Pennsylvania  Declaration  of  Rights 
contains  these  words:  "The  community  hath  an  indubitable,  inalien- 
able, and  indefeasable  right  to  reform,  alter,  or  abolish,  government,  in 
such  manner  as  shall  be  by  that  community  judged  most  conducive  to 
the  public  weal."  In  harmony  with  these  declarations  we  made  laws, 
such  that  political  offenders,  though  they  had  been  in  open  revolt  to  a 
tyrannous  foreign  government,  or  had  slain  the  minions  of  the  tyrant, 
might  here  find  a  safe  retreat  from  extradition. 

All  this  has  passed  away.  Formerly  it  was  our  truthful  boast  that 
we  were  the  freest  people  on  earth.  To-day  it  is  our  silent  shame  that 
among  all  the  tyrannical  governments  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ours  is 
probably  the  only  one  which  makes  the  right  of  admission  depend  upon 
the  abstract  political  opinions  of  the  applicant.  Our  people  denounce 
the  unspeakable  tyranny  of  a  bloody  Czar,  and  pass  laws  here  to  pro- 
tect him  in  the  exercise  of  his  brutalities  in  Russia.  Instead  of  being 
"  the  land  of  the  free  and  the  home  of  the  brave,"  we  exclude  from 
our  shores  those  who  are  brave  and  seek  freedom  here,  and  punish  men 
for  expressing  unpopular  opinions  if  they  already  live  here.  In  vain 
do  the  afflicted  ones  appeal  to  a  "liberty  loving"  populace  for  help  in 
maintaining  liberty. 

In  this  short  essay,  I  can  discuss  specifically  only  the  denial  of  liberty 
of  conscience,  speech,  and  press,  as  it  affects  one  class  of  citizens,  and 
I  choose  to  defend  the  most  despised. 

Under  our  immigration  laws  no  Anarchist,  that  is,  "  no  person  who 
disbelieves  in  or  who  is  opposed  to  all  organized  governments,"  is  al- 
lowed to  enter  the  United  States,  even  though  such  person  be  a  non- 
resistant  Quaker.  In  other  words,  the  person  who  believes  with  the 
signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  that  those  who  create  and 
maintain  governments  have  a  right  to  abolish  them,  and  who  also  desire 
to  persuade  the  majority  of  their  fellow-men  to  exercise  this  privilege, 
are  denied  admission  to  our  national  domain. 

Of  course  that  and  kindred  legislation  was  the  outgrowth  of  the  most 


LIBERTY  OF  SPEECH  FOR  ANARCHISTS         243 

crass  ignorance  and  hysteria,  over  the  word  "Anarchist."  I  say  most 
crass  ignorance  deliberately,  because  to  me  it  Ls  unthinkable  that  any 
sane  man  with  an  intelligent  conception  of  what  Ls  believed  by  such 
non-resistant  Anarchists  as  Count  Tolstoi,  could  possibly  desire  to 
exclude  him  from  the  United  States.  It  almost  seems  as  though  most 
people  were  still  so  unenlightened  as  not  to  know  the  difference  between 
Socialism,  Anarchism,  and  regicide,  and  so  wanting  in  imagination 
that  they  cannot  possibly  conceive  of  a  case  in  which  the  violent  resist- 
ance or  resentment  of  tyranny  might  become  excusable.  Thus  it  is 
that  the  vast  multitude  whose  education  is  limited  to  a  newspaper 
intelligence,  stupidly  assume  that  no  one  but  an  Anarchist  could  commit 
a  political  homicide,  and  that  every  Anarchist  of  necessity  condones 
every  such  taking  of  human  life.  Nothing  of  course  could  be  farther 
from  the  fact,  but  out  of  this  ignorance  it  comes  that  every  attempt 
at  violence  upon  officials  is  charged  against  Anarchists  even  before 
it  is  known  who  the  perpetrator  was,  and  without  knowing  or  caring 
whether  he  was  an  Anarchist,  a  Socialist,  an  ordinary  democrat,  a  man 
with  a  personal  grudge,  or  a  lunatic.  From  such  foundation  of  igno- 
rance comes  the  result  that  we  punish  those  who  disagree  with  the  English 
tyrant  of  a  couple  of  centuries  ago,  who  said  that  the  worst  government 
imaginable  was  better  than  no  government  at  all. 

For  the  benefit  of  those  whose  indolence  precludes  them  from  going 
to  a  dictionary  to  find  out  what  "  Anarchism "  stands  for  I  will  take 
the  space  necessary  to  quote  Professor  Huxley  on  the  subject.  He 
says: 

"Doubtless,  it  is  possible  to  imagine  a  true  'Civitas  Dei,'  in  which 
every  man's  moral  faculty  shall  be  such  as  leads  him  to  control  all  those 
desires  which  run  counter  to  the  good  of  mankind,  and  to  cherish  only 
those  which  conduce  to  the  welfare  of  society;  and  in  which  every 
man's  native  intellect  shall  be  sufficiently  strong  and  his  culture  suf- 
ficiently extensive  to  enable  him  to  know  what  he  ought  to  do  and  to 
seek  after.  And  in  that  blessed  State,  police  will  be  as  much  a  super- 
fluity as  every  other  kind  of  government.  .  .  .  Anarchy,  as  a  term  of 
political  philosophy,  must  be  taken  only  in  its  proper  sense,  which  has 
nothing  to  do  with  disorder  or  with  crimes;  but  denotes  a  state  of 
society,  in  which  the  rule  of  each  individual  by  himself  is  the  only 
government  the  legitimacy  of  which  is  recognized.  Anarchy,  as  thus 
far  defined,  is  the  logical  outcome  of  the  form  of  political  theory  which, 
for  the  last  half-century  and  more,  has  been  known  under  the  name  of 
Individualism." 

And  men  who  merely  believe  this  beautiful  ideal  attainable  are  unfit 
for  residence  in  a  land  that  boasts  of  freedom  of  conscience  and  press ! 

If  the  distinguished  and  scholarly  author  of  the  "Life  of  Jesus,"  M. 
Ernest  Renan,  should  be  Commissioner  of  Immigration,  he  would. 


246  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

under  present  laws,  be  compelled  to  exclude  from  the  United  States  the 
founder  of  Christianity,  should  he  seek  admission.  In  his  "  Life  of 
Jesus,"  Renan  expresses  this  conclusion:  "In  one  view  Jesus  was  an 
Anarchist,  for  he  had  no  notion  of  civil  government,  which  seemed  to 
him  an  abuse,  pure  and  simple.  .  .  .  Every  magistrate  seemed  to  him 
a  natural  enemy  of  the  people  of  God.  .  .  .  His  aim  is  to  annihilate 
wealth  and  power,  not  to  grasp  them." 

If  the  Rev.  Heber  Newton  were  Commissioner  of  Immigration,  he, 
too,  would  have  to  exclude  Jesus  from  our  land  as  an  Anarchist.  Dr. 
Newton  says :  "  Anarchism  is  in  reality  the  ideal  of  political  and  social 
science,  and  also  the  ideal  of  religion.  It  is  the  ideal  to  which  Jesus 
Christ  looked  forward.  Christ  founded  no  church,  established  no 
state,  gave  practically  no  laws,  organized  no  government,  and  set  up 
no  external  authority,  but  he  did  seek  to  write  on  the  hearts  of  men 
God's  law  and  make  them  self -legislating." 

Surely  people  who  ask  only  the  liberty  of  trying  to  persuade  their 
fellow-men  to  abolish  government,  through  passive  resistance,  cannot 
possibly  be  a  menace  to  any  institution  worth  maintaining,  yet  such 
men  we  deny  admission  into  the  United  States.  If  they  chance  to  be 
Russians,  we  send  them  back,  perhaps  to  end  their  days  as  Siberian 
exiles,  and  all  because  they  have  expressed  a  mere  abstract  "disbelief 
in  government,"  though  accompanied  only  by  a  desire  for  passive 
resistance. 

Julian  Hawthorne  wrote  this:  "Did  you  ever  notice  that  all  the 
interesting  people  you  meet  are  Anarchists  ? "  According  to  his  judg- 
ment, "  all  the  interesting  people  "  would,  under  present  laws,  be  excluded 
from  the  United  States.  An  industrious  commissioner,  zealous  to 
enforce  the  law  to  the  very  letter,  could  easily  take  the  writings  of  the 
world's  best  and  greatest  men,  and,  if  foreigners,  on  their  own  admis- 
sions, could  exclude  them  because  they  had  advocated  the  Anarchist 
ideal  of  a  "disbelief  in  government."  Among  such  might  be  named 
the  following:  Count  Leo  Tolstoi,  Prince  Peter  Kropotkin,  Michel 
Montaigne,  Thomas  Paine,  Henry  Thoreau,  Lord  Macaulay,  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  Hall  Caine,  Turgot,  Simeon  of  Durham,  Bishop  of 
St.  Andrews,  Max  Stirner,  Elisee  Reclus,  Frederick  Nietzsche,  Thomas 
Carlyle,  Horace  Traubel,  Walt.  Whitman,  Elbert  Hubbard,  Samuel 
M.  Jones,  Henrik  Ibsen,  Pierre  Proudhon,  Michael  Bakunin,  Charles 
O'Conor,  and  probably  also  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson,  Thomas  Jefferson, 
Herbert  Spencer,  John  Stuart  Mill,  and — but  what  's  the  use  ?  They 
can  't  all  be  named. 

These  are  the  type  of  men  who  hold  an  ideal,  only  a  dream,  perhaps, 
of  liberty  without  the  invasion  of  even  government,  and  therefore  we 
make  a  law  to  exclude  them  from  the  United  States.  But  that  is  not 
all  we  do  in  this  "  free  "  country.     If  a  resident  of  this  "  land  of  the  free  " 


LIBERTY  OF  SPEECH  FOR  ANARCHISTS         247 

should  "connive  or  conspire"  to  induce  any  of  these  non-resistants, 
who  disbeheve  in  governments,"  to  come  to  the  United  States  by 
sendmg  one  of  them  a  printed  or  written,  private  or  public,  invitation 
to  visit  here,  such  "conspirer"  would  be  liable  to  a  fine  of  five  thousand 
dollars,  or  three  years'  imprisonment,  or  both.  And  yet  we  boast  of 
our  freedom  of  conscience,  of  speech  and  of  press ! 

It  is  hard  for  me  to  believe  that  there  is  any  sane  adult,  worthy  to 
be  an  American,  who  knows  something  of  our  own  revolutionary  history, 
who  does  not  believe  revolution  by  force  to  be  morally  justifiable  under 
some  circumstances,  as  perhaps  in  Russia,  and  who  would  not  defend 
the  revolutionists  in  the  slaughter  of  the  official  tyrants  of  Russia,  if 
no  other  means  for  the  abolition  of  their  tyranny  were  available,  or  who 
would  not  be  a  revolutionist  if  compelled  to  live  in  Russia  and  denied 
the  right  to  even  agitate  for  peaceable  reform.  And  yet  "  free  "  America, 
by  a  congressional  enactment,  denies  admission  to  the  United  States  of 
any  Russian  patriot  who  agrees  with  us  in  this  opinion,  even  though  he 
has  no  sympathy  whatever  with  anarchist  ideals.  It  is. enough  that  he 
justifies  the  "unlawful"  killing  (even  though  in  open  battle  for  free- 
dom) of  any  "tyrant  officer"  of  "any  civilized  nation  having  an  organ- 
ized government."  Here,  then,  is  the  final  legislative  announcement 
that  no  tyranny,  however  heartless  or  bloody,  "  of  any  civilized  nation 
having  an  organized  government"  can  possibly  justify  violent  resist- 
ance. It  was  a  violation  of  this  law  to  admit  Maxim  Gorky  into  this 
country,  though  he  is  not  an  Anarchist. 

In  the  state  of  New  York,  although  satisfied  with  American  condi- 
tions and  officials,  and  although  you  believe  in  democratic  government, 
if  you  should  orally,  or  in  print,  advocate  the  cause  of  forcible  revolu- 
tion against  Russia,  or  against  "any  civilized  nation  having  an  organ- 
ized government,"  you  would  be  liable,  under  a  state  statute,  to  a  fine 
of  $5,000  and  ten  years'  imprisonment  besides.  Have  we,  then,  freedom 
of  conscience,  speech,  and  press  ?  Do  we  love  liberty  or  know  its  mean- 
ing? 

Yes,  it  may  be  that  a  dispassionate  and  enlightened  judge  must 
declare  such  laws  unconstitutional,  but  such  judges  are  as  scarce  as 
the  seekers  after  martyrdom  who  are  willing  to  make  a  test  case.  Hence 
we  all  submit  to  this  tj^anny.  Furthermore,  the  same  hysteria  which 
could  make  legislators  believe  they  had  the  power  to  pass  such  a  law,  in 
all  probability  would  also  induce  courts  to  confirm  such  power.  A 
Western  jurist,  a  member  of  the  highest  court  of  his  state,  once  said  to 
me  that  it  must  be  a  very  stupid  lawyer  who  could  not  write  a  plausible 
opinion  on  either  side  of  any  case  that  ever  came  to  an  appellate  court. 
Given  the  mental  predisposition  induced  by  popular  panic,  together 
with  intense  emotions,  and  it  is  easy,  very  easy,  to  formulate  verbal 
"  interpretations  "  by  which  the  constitutional  guarantees  are  explained 


248  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

away,  or  exceptions  interpolated, — ^a  common  process  for  the  judicial 
amendment  of  laws  and  constitutions. 

If,  then,  we  truly  believe  in  the  liberty  of  conscience,  speech,  and 
press,  we  must  place  ourselves  again  squarely  upon  the  declaration  of 
rights  made  by  our  forefathers,  and  defend  the  right  of  others  to  dis- 
agree with  us,  even  about  the  beneficence  of  government. 

As  when  your  neighbor's  house  is  on  fire  your  own  is  in  danger,  so 
the  protection  of  your  liberty  should  begin  when  it  is  menaced  by  a 
precedent  which  attacks  your  opponent's  equality  of  opportunity  to 
express  his  disagreement  with  you.  Let  us  then  unite  for  the  repeal  of 
these  iniquitous  laws,  born  of  hysteria  and  popular  panic,  and  main- 
tained in  thoughtless  disregard  of  others'  intellectual  freedom. — Theo- 
dore Shroeder,  "Our  Vanishing  Liberty  of  the  Press."  The  Arenuy 
December,  1896.  ^ 


APPENDIX 


Censorship  op  Sex-Literature 

Let  me  now  give  you  some  information  as  to  what  has  been  and  can 
be  suppressed.  And  here  I  must  confess  to  my  inability  to  make  a 
thorough  report,  partly  because  no  man  can  discover  more  than  a  small 
percentage  of  what  has  been  suppressed,  and  partly  because,  in  many 
cases  where  suppression  is  accomplished  by  a  mere  threat  to  prosecute, 
the  publishers  and  authors  become  seized  with  a  cowardly  fear,  and', 
instead  of  resisting  the  tyranny,  will  not  even  consent  that  others  shall 
mention  the  fact  because  they  don 't  want  the  public  to  know  that  any 
of  their  publications  have  ever  been  under  suspicion.  So  they  quietly 
pocket  their  loss  and  chagrin  and  command  their  friends  to  keep  the 
secret,  and,  so  far  as  the  general  public  is  concerned,  they  suppress  all 
knowledge  of  the  censor 's  acts. 

THE   CASE   OF   HICKLIN 

Our  American  judicial  conception  of  "obscene  literature"  was  adopted 
from  the  British,  our  courts  having  literally  read  into  our  statutes  the 
ruling  of  their  leading  case.  The  first  reported  English  decision  (Reg. 
vs.  Hicklin,  L.  R.  3,  Q,  B.  360)  which  attempted  to  state  a  test  of  ob- 
scenity was  decided  in  1868,  and  furnished  the  precedent  for  practically 
all  American  decisions.  The  facts  were  as  follows:  Hicklin,  the  ac- 
cused, had  sold  a  pamphlet  entitled  "The  Confessional  Unmasked; 
Showing  the  Depravity  of  the  Romish  Priesthood,  and  the  Questions 
Put  to  Females  in  Confession."  The  pamphlet  consisted  of  extracts 
from  Catholic  theologians,  one  page  giving  the  exact  original  Latin 
quotations  and  the  adjoining  page  furnishing  a  correct  translation  there- 
of. Most  of  the  pamphlet  admittedly  was  not  at  all  "obscene."  It  was 
not  sold  for  gain,  nor  with  any  intention  to  deprave  morality.  It  was 
sold  by  him  as  a  member  of  the  "Protestant  Electoral  Union,"  formed 
"to  protest  against  those  teachings  and  practices  which  are  un-English, 
immoral,  and  blasphemous,  to  maintain  the  Protestantism  of  the  Bible 
and  the  liberty  of  England.  .  .  .  To  promote  the  return  to  Parliament 
of  men  who  will  assist  them  in  these  objects  and  particularly  will  expose 
and  defeat  the  deep-laid  machinations  of  the  Jesuits,  and  resist  grants 
of  money  for  Romish  purposes."  (A  few  years  ago  a  similar  book  is- 
sued by  some  an ti -Catholic  association  was  suppressed  in  California.) 

Notwithstanding  all  these  admitted  facts,  the  court  held  the  pamphlet 
to  be  obscene  and  laid  down  this  test:  "Whether  the  tendency  of  the 
matter  charged  as  obscenity  is  to  deprave  and  corrupt  those  whose  minds 

249 


250  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

are  open  to  such  immoral  influences  and  into  whose  hands  a  publication 
of  this  sort  may  fall."  It  will  be  observed  that  it  was  criminal,  if  in  the 
hands  of  any  one  imaginary  person  it  might  be  speculatively  believed 
to  be  injurious,  no  matter  how  much  it  tended  to  improve  the  morals  of 
all  the  rest  of  mankind,  nor  how  lofty  were  the  motives  of  those  accused, 
nor  how  true  was  that  which  they  wrote.  This  is  still  the  test  of  ob- 
scenity under  our  laws,  and  it  has  worked  some  results  which  could 
hardly  have  been  in  contemplation  by  our  legislators  in  passing  our  laws 
against  "indecent"  literature. 

Sanger's  "history  of  prostitution" 

Dr.  William  W.  Sanger  was  for  a  long  time  resident  physician  at 
Blackwell's  Island,  and  held  other  important  positions.  In  1876  he 
made  "an  official  report  to  the  boards  of  Almshouse  Governors  of  the 
City  of  New  York,"  since  published  and  circulated  under  the  title  of 
"The  History  of  Prostitution:  Its  Extent,  Causes,  and  Effect  Through- 
out the  World."  It  is  a  very  learned  treatise,  evidencing  great  research 
and  a  real  scholar 's  desire  to  help  humanity.  Under  date  of  November 
15,  1907,  a  Sunday  school  politician  (seemingly)  by  the  name  of  R,  M. 
Webster,  holding  down  his  job  of  "Acting  Assistant  Attorney-General" 
of  these  United  States,  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Hon.  A.  L.  Lawshe,  Third 
Assistant  Postmaster-General,  advising  him  to  exclude  from  the  mails 
a  periodical  containing  an  advertisement  of  the  above  book,  as  to  which 
he  wrote:  "The  History  of  Prostitution"  which  from  its  very  name  is 
clearly  indecent  and  unfit  for  circulation  through  the  mails."  Although 
the  general  public  would  seem  to  be  entitled  to  know  all  that  can  be 
known  upon  the  subject  of  prostitution,  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  what 
laws  are  best  to  pass  upon  the  subject,  yet  a  petty  department  clerk, 
living  on  that  same  general  public,  assumes  without  protest  to  be  their 
master  and  tells  them  by  a  mere  inspection  of  the  title  of  a  book  and  with- 
out troubling  to  know  its  contents,  that  it  is  too  "indecent  and  unfit" 
for  them  even  to  know  about.  I  am  advised  that  at  one  time  even  Mr. 
Comstock  paid  this  book  a  very  high  compliment,  which  it  certainly 
deserved. 

You  will  admit  such  a  ruling  is  absurd  ?  But  it  is  the  law  for  all  postal 
officials  and  controls  their  action.     What  are  you  going  to  do  about  it? 

"vice:  its  friends  and  its  foes,"and  "up-to-date  fables." 

In  the  same  letter  this  little  clerk,  who  really  is  the  master  of  our  intel- 
lectual food  supply,  pronounced  a  magazine  unmailable  for  advertising 
"Vice:  Its  Friends  and  Its  Foes,"  "Up-to-date  Fables,"  of  which  he 
says — "both  of  which,  from  the  table  of  contents  set  forth  in  each  adver- 
tisement, are  obscene,  lewd,  lascivious,  or  indecent."  The  first  of  these 
booklets  I  have  seen  and  in  the  main  it  is  an  attack  on  Comstockery, 


APPENDIX  251 

and  an  argument  for  sexual  intelligence.  Even  Mr.  Comstock  would 
not  have  found  this  booklet  to  be  obscene,  though  of  course  he  would 
disagree  with  its  conclusions.  The  table  of  contents  is  too  long  to  re- 
produce here,  but  I  will  reproduce  the  table  of  contents  of  the  "Up-to- 
Date  Fables,"  just  to  show  how  little  information  is  necessar\'  to  discover 
"obscenity"  when  one  has  a  "pure"  mind.  Here  it  is:  "Contents:  The 
Male  Amazons,  The  Strassburg  Geese,  Bread  Eaten  in  Secret,  The 
One  Tune,  A  tale  about  Noses,  The  Women  and  the  Wells,  Mrs.  Grun- 
dy's  Two  Boarding  Schools,  The  Emancipated  Horses."  Now,  then, 
from  that,  and  that  alone,  a  pee-wee  clerk  in  the  government  employ  is 
able  to  decide  and  does  decide,  that  this  booklet  is  degrading  to  our 
morals,  an  advertisement  telling  us  where  it  may  be  had  is  unmailable, 
and  to  send  any  of  these  through  the  mails  entitles  the  sender  to  five 
years  in  jail. 

"almost  fourteen" 

In  1892  Dodd,  Mead  &  Co.  published  a  little  book  entitled  "Almost 
Fourteen,"  written  by  Mortimer  A.  Warren,  a  public  school  teacher. 
Before  pubhshing  it,  Mr.  Warren  submitted  the  manuscript  to  his  wife 
and  to  the  pastors  of  the  Broadway  Tabernacle  and  of  the  Church  of  the 
Heavenly  Rest,  and  to  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott.  All  these  indorsed  its  aim 
and  tone. 

After  publication,  there  were  of  course  prudes  who  criticized,  but 
such  papers  as  The  Christian  Union  gave  it  a  favorable  review.  The 
Rev.  L.  A.  Pope,  then  pastor  of  the  Baptist  Church  of  Newburjjjort, 
Mass.,  placed  the  book  in  the  Sunday  school  library  of  his  church,  and 
purchased  a  large  number  at  a  reduced  price,  selling  them  at  cost,  simply 
that  the  young  might  read  and  learn,  so  well  did  he  think  of  the  book. 
In  my  ow  n  view  it  would  be  impossible  to  deal  properly  with  the  subject 
of  sex  and  do  it  in  a  more  delicate,  inoffensive  manner. 

No  question  was  raised  about  the  book  until  1907,  when  Albert  F. 
Hunt,  of  Newbur}'port,  Mass.,  was  arrested  for  selling  "obscene"  litera- 
ture. Mr.  Hunt  had  made  himself  verj'  unpopular  as  an  aggressive  re- 
former. He  had  attacked  the  police  force,  exliibited  the  iniquity  of  the 
«ity  administration,  exposed  the  sins  of  the  city,  such  as  the  practice  of 
taking  nude  photographs,  the  aggressions  of  the  saloonkeepers,  and 
exposed  the  owners  of  buildings  leased  for  prostitution.  He  had  many 
influential  enemies.  In  this  condition  he  secured  permission  to  repub- 
lish "Almost  Fourteen"  in  his  paper,  was  arrested,  convicted,  and  fined. 

I  have  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that,  judged  by  the  scientifically  absurd 
tests  of  obscenity  as  applied  by  the  courts,  this  innocent  book  was  criminal 
under  the  law  against  obscene  literature,  because  no  doubt  somewhere 
there  existed  some  sexually  h\-peresthetic  person  into  whose  hands  it 
might  come,  and  in  whose  mind  it  might  induce  lewd  thoughts.     The 


252  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

legislative  "obscenity"  takes  no  account  of  the  thousands  who  might  be 
benefited  by  such  a  book;  it  only  asks  if  there  may  be  one  so  weak  that  it 
might  injure  him. 

After  this  conviction  for  circulating  humanitarian  literature  of  a  most 
useful  kind,  the  author  of  this  good  book  was  driven  from  his  place  as 
principal  of  the  public  schools,  by  the  prudish  bigotry  of  his  fellow- 
townsmen  and  employers.  The  book  can  now  be  had  only  with  much 
of  its  most  useful  matter  eliminated.  We  need  liberty  of  the  press  for 
persons  like  Warren,  Hunt,  and  Dodd,  Mead  &  Co. 

"from  the  ballroom  to  hell" 

This  book  has  the  indorsement  of  practically  all  opponents  of  dancing. 
It  furnished  the  suggestions  for  thousands  of  sermons;  it  had  the  com- 
mendation of  innumerable  clergymen,  including  several  bishops;  it  went 
through  the  mails  unchallenged  for  twelve  years.  A  Chicago  postal 
official  now  declares  it  criminally  "obscene",  and  the  book  is  suppressed. 
Again  it  is  not  a  rule  of  general  law  which  makes  this  book  criminal,  but 
the  whim  or  caprice  of  a  postal  subordinate. 

MRS.    CARRIE   NATION   ARRESTED 

Most  of  the  literature  intended  to  promote  personal  purity  is  so  veiled 
in  a  fog  of  verbiage  as  to  be  utterly  meaningless  to  the  young,  because 
they  lack  the  intelligence  which  alone  could  make  it  possible  to  trans- 
late the  inuendoes  into  the  mental  pictures  which  the  words  are  supposed 
to  symbolize.  Recently  Mrs.  Carrie  Nation,  in  her  paper,  published 
some  wholesome  advice  to  small  boys.  She  used  scientifically  chaste 
English  and  took  the  trouble  to  define  the  meaning  of  the  words.  She 
wrote  so  plainly  that  there  was  actually  a  possibility  that  boys  might 
understand  what  she  was  trying  to  warn  them  against.  She  wrote  with 
greater  plainness  than  some  of  those  books  which  have  been  adjudged 
criminally  obscene. 

A  warrant  was  issued  for  her  in  Oklahoma,  for  sending  "obscene" 
matter  through  the  mails.  She  being  then  in  Texas  on  a  lecture  tour, 
was  there  arrested  and  taken  to  Dallas  before  a  TJ.  S.  commissioner. 
Fortunately  she  found  there  a  U.  S.  attorney  with  some  sense,  who, 
though  he  did  not  approve  of  her  taste,  consented  to  the  discharge  of 
the  prisoner.  .  .  . 

"  Clark's  marriage  guide." 

In  Massachusetts  one  Jones  was  arrested  for  sending  through  the 
mails  "Clark's  Marriage  Guide."  It  must  already  be  apparent  that 
under  the  laws  in  question  no  one  can  tell  in  advance  what  is  or  is  not 
criminal,  because  no  one  can  predetermine  what  will  be  the  opinion  of 


APPENDIX  253 

a  judge  or  jury  upon  the  speculative  problem  of  the  book 's  psychological 
tendency  upon  some  hypothetical  reader  suffering  from  sexual  hyperes- 
theticism.  Unfortunately,  Mr.  Jones  went  for  advice  to  a  lawyer  who 
must  have  been  a  good  deal  of  a  prude,  and  who  therefore  advised  his 
client  to  plead  guilty,  which  he  did.  Later,  when  Judge  Lowell  was 
called  upon  to  impose  sentence,  he  is  reported  to  have  said  that  the  book 
"is  not  immoral  or  indecent  at  all,"  and  imposed  only  a  nominal  fine. 
In  Chicago  the  same  book  was  suppressed  by  heavy  fines,  aggregating 
over  $5,000. 

"studies  in  the  psychology  of  sex" 

In  England,  under  a  law  just  like  our  own  in  its  description  of  what 
is  prohibited.  Dr.  Havelock  Ellis'  "Studies  in  the  Psychology  of  Sex" 
have  been  wholly  suppressed  as  "obscene"  by  the  conviction  of  one  ven- 
dor. These  studies  are  so  exhaustive  and  collect  so  much  original  and 
unusual  information  that  they  mark  an  entirely  new  epoch  in  the  study 
of  sexual  science.  The  German  edition  of  this  very  superior  treatise  is 
now  denied  admission  into  the  United  States,  to  protect  the  morals  and 
perpetuate  the  ignorance  of  the  German -American  physicians.  Further- 
more, no  one  can  doubt  that  their  exclusion  is  in  strict  accord  with  the 
letter  of  the  statute  as  the  same  is  ignorantly  interpreted  through  the 
judicial  "tests"  of  obscenity. 

That  scientifically  absurd  test  is  decisive  even  though  applied  to  a 
scholarly  treatise  upon  sex,  circulated  within  the  medical  profession,  for 
the  statute  makes  no  exception  in  favor  of  medical  men.  An  impartial 
enforcement  of  the  letter  of  the  law,  as  the  word  "obscene"  is  now  in- 
terpreted, would  entirely  extirpate  the  scientific  literature  of  sex.  So 
deeply  have  the  judges  been  impressed  with  this  possible  iniquity,  that 
by  dictum,  quite  in  excess  of  their  power,  they  have  made  a  judicial 
amendment  of  the  statute,  excepting  from  its  operation  books  circulated 
only  among  physicians.  Such  judicial  legislation  of  course  is  made  under 
the  pretense  of  "statutory  interpretation"  and  involves  the  ridiculous 
proposition  that  a  book  which  is  criminally  obscene  if  handed  to  a  lay- 
man, changes  its  character  if  handed  to  a  physician;  it  assumes  that  a 
scientific  knowledge  of  sex  is  dangerous  to  the  morals  of  those  who  do 
not  use  the  knowledge  as  a  means  of  making  money  in  the  practice  of 
medicine,  and  that  it  becomes  a  moral  force  when,  and  only  when,  thus 
employed  for  pecuniary  gain.  Public  morals  depend  upon  ignorance. 
The  suppression  of  the  American  edition  of  "Studies  in  the  Psychology 
of  Sex,"  awaits  only  the  concurrent  eruption  of  a  caprice  in  some  fool 
reformer  and  a  stupid  jury.  The  same  statutory-  words  which  furnished 
a  conviction  in  England,  and  here  are  adequate  to  exclude  the  German 
edition,  will  determine  the  suppression  of  the  American  edition. 


254  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

DR.    MALCHOW   AND    "THE   SEXUAL   LIFE" 

Connected  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  church  schools,  is  Hamline 
University  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons.  Dr.  C.  W.  Malchow 
was  there  the  professor  of  proctology  and  associate  in  clinical  medicine. 
He  was  also  the  president  of  the  Physicians  and  Surgeons'  Club  of 
Minneapolis,  and  a  member  of  the  Hennepin  County  Medical  Society, 
the  Minnesota  State  Medical  Society,  and  the  American  Medical  As- 
sociation. 

He  wrote  a  book  on  "The  Sexual  Life"  which  received  strong  praise 
from  educational  and  medical  journals  and  from  professional  persons. 
I  have  seen  commendator}'  reviews  from  ten  professional  magazines. 
While  in  press,  he  read  a  most  perplexing  chapter  from  the  book  to  a 
meeting  of  Methodist  ministers  and  its  deUcate  treatment  of  a  diflBcuIt 
subject  was  strongly  commended. 

Yet  under  the  absurd  tests  prescribed  by  the  courts  and  in  spite  of  the 
protests  of  the  Minneapolis  Times  and  Tribune,  Dr.  Malchow  and  his 
publisher  have  served  a  jail  sentence  for  selling  to  the  laity,  through  the 
mail,  a  high  class  scientific  discussion  of  sex. 

During  the  trial,  the  court  refused  the  defendants  the  right  to  prove 
that  all  in  the  book  was  true,  holding,  with  all  the  judicial  decisions,  that 
their  being  true  was  immaterial  in  fixing  guilt.  An  unsuccessful  effort 
was  made  to  prove  the  need  for  such  a  book  because  of  the  great  ignorance 
of  the  public  upon  sex  matters,  and  the  "learned"  judge  remarked  that 
he  hoped  it  was  true  that  the  public  was  ignorant  of  such  matters,  and 
excluded  the  evidence.  President  Roosevelt,  being  asked  by  members 
of  Congress  to  pardon  the  convicts  because  of  the  propriety  of  this  book, 
is  reported  to  have  expressed  an  amazing  regret  that  he  could  not  prolong 
the  sentence. 

"the  life  sexual" 

Edgar  C.  Beall,  M.D.,  wrote  a  little  book  entitled  "The  Life  Sexual, 
a  Study  of  the  Philosophy,  Physiology,  Science,  Art,  and  Hygiene  of 
Love,"  which  was  suppressed  in  1906  by  threat  of  prosecution.  The 
book  was  written  for  the  general  reader,  and  differs  from  the  ordinary 
"purity"  book  in  that  the  theology  of  sex  is  supplanted  by  a  more  en- 
lightened view,  and  much  very  wholesome  and  needed  advice,  in  spite 
of  its  slight  element  of  "phrenopysics."  However,  this  had  nothing  to 
do  with  its  "obscenity."  I  have  read  much  of  this  book  and  can  not  for 
the  life  of  me  conceive  why  it  should  be  deemed  offensive,  because  the 
book  is  written  in  a  refined  style  and  is  insti*uctive.  The  opening  chapter 
is  devoted  to  a  strong  criticism  of  "The  Ban  upon  Sexual  Science,"  and 
maybe  therein  lies  the  cause  of  complaint.  Another  explanation  was 
offered  by  a  minor  official,  which  was,  that  this  matter,  coming  to  the 
attention  of  the  post  office  department  immediately  after  the  suppression 


APPENDIX  255 

of  Professor  Malchow  's  book,  the  similarity  of  title  suggested  a  necessary 
similarity  in  treatment  of  the  subject  and  therefore  a  like  "obscenity." 

DR.    KIME   AND   THE   IOWA    MEDICAL  JOURNAL 

A  very  few  years  ago,  Dr.  Kime,  the  editor  of  the  Iowa  Medical  Jour- 
nal, was  convicted  of  "obscenity."  He  was  a  physician  of  high  standing 
and  a  trustee  of  a  medical  college,  in  which  a  few  young  rowdy  students 
were  apparently  endeavoring  to  drive  out  the  women  students.  A  pro- 
test to  the  college  authorities  resulted  only  in  a  two  week 's  suspension. 
On  further  complaint,  instead  of  protecting  the  women  in  their  equal 
right  to  study  medicine  under  decent  conditions,  the  authorities  excluded 
women  altogether  from  the  medical  school.  Filled  with  indignation. 
Dr.  Kime  reiterated  his  protest,  and  gave  publicity  to  some  of  the  methods 
of  persecution,  including  an  insulting  prescription  which  appeared  on 
the  blackboard  where  all  the  class  could  see  it.  In  his  Medical  Journal 
he  wrote:  "We  had  thought  to  ^^^thhold  this  prescription,  owing  to  its 
extreme  vulgarity,  but  we  believe  it  our  duty  to  show  the  condition  ex- 
actly as  it  exists,  and  let  each  physician  judge  for  himself  as  to  the  just- 
ness of  the  protest  filed."  Then  followed  the  "obscene"  prescription,  the 
obscenity  of  which  consisted  wholly  in  the  use  of  one  word  of  double 
meaning. 

For  this  he  was  arrested,  and,  although  supported  by  all  four  daily 
papers  of  his  home  city,  by  the  clergy  of  all  denominations,  the  presidents 
of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  the  W.  C.  T.  U.,  and  the  Western  Society  for  the 
Suppression  of  Vice,  and  the  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Social  Purity-, 
he  was  convicted,  branded  as  a  criminal,  and  fined.  Judged  by  the 
absurd  judicial  "tests  of  obscenity"  which  are  always  applied,  the  con- 
viction was  unquestionably  correct. 

CRADDOCK   AND   STOCKHAM   CASES 

As  illustrating  how  our  fears  are  often  but  the  product  of  ignorance, 
I  am  going  to  relate  to  you  how  and  why  I  changed  my  mind  about  two 
booklets  pronounced  "the  most  obscene"  that  ever  came  to  the  criminal 
court.  .  .  .  Both  were  entitled  "The  Wedding  Night,"  and  dealt 
with  the  subject  in  a  verj'  detailed  manner.  One  was  by  an 
unfortunate  woman  named  Ida  C.  Craddock,  who  'styled  herself  a 
"purity  lecturer."  Mr.  Comstock  denounced  her  book  as  "the 
science  of  seduction."  It  could  have  been  more  accurately  de- 
scribed as  advice  for  the  best  means  of  consummating  the  mar- 
riage. The  judge  who  sentenced  the  author  called  it  "indescribably 
obscene."  To  one  who,  from  diseased  sex-sensitiveness,  is  incapable  of 
reading  a  discussion  of  sex  functioning  with  the  same  equanimity  as 
would  accompany  a  discussion  of  lung  functioning,  or  to  one  who  would 
apply  the  absurd  judicial  "tests  of  obscenity,"  this  booklet  must  appear 


«56  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

just  as  these  men  described  it.  Of  course,  she  was  found  guilty.  Later 
she  committed  suicide  to  escape  the  penalty  of  the  law. 

For  the  book  Mrs.  Craddock  claimed  to  have  the  indorsement  of 
several  prominent  members  of  the  Women's  Christian  Temperance 
Union,  and  published  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  W,  S.  Rainsford,  the  very 
distinguished  rector  of  the  fashionable  St.  George's  Episcopal  Church 
of  New  York  City,  in  which  he  said :  "This  much  I  will  say,  I  am  sure 
if  all  young  people  read  carefully  'The  Marriage  Night,'  much  misery, 
sorrow,  and  disappointment  could  be  avoided." 

The  other  booklet  was  by  Dr.  Alice  Stockham,  the  well  known  author 
of  "Tokology"  and  similar  books,  and  in  name  and  substance,  I  believe, 
it  was  very  much  like  the  Craddock  book.  A  post  office  inspector  pro- 
nounced it  the  most  obscene  book  he  had  ever  read.  She  was  convicted 
and  heavily  fined,  though,  with  many  friends,  she  vigorously  defended 
the  propriety  and  necessity  for  her  booklet  of  instructions.  Of  course 
neither  of  these  books,  nor  any  like  them,  are  now  anywhere  to  be  had. 

The  question  is,  what  good  could  be  done  by  these  books,  so  unquest- 
ionably "obscene"  if  judged  by  present  judicial  standards  ?  I  confess 
that  when  first  I  heard  of  these  cases  I  knew  of  no  excuse  for  the  exist- 
ence of  this  unpleasant  literature. 

I  had  read  in  medical  literature  statements  like  this:  "The  shock  and 
suffering  endured  by  the  young  wife,  in  the  nuptial  bed,  is  too  frequently 
prolonged  into  after-life,  and  may  seriously  mar  the  connubial  bliss."* 
Such  generalizations,  however,  meant  nothing  to  me  until  a  strange  set 
of  circumstances  came  to  my  notice,  which  I  will  relate  to  you  in  the 
order  of  their  occurence. 

Not  long  since  I  learned  of  the  marriage  of  persons  in  a  most  conserva- 
tive social  set.  The  couple  had  been  chums  since  childhood  and  en- 
gaged lovers  for  many  years.  After  this  long  waiting,  came  the  joyously 
anticipated  wedding,  and  the  bride  was  the  ideal  picture  of  radiant  love. 
The  day  after  her  marriage  she  acted  strangely,  and  by  evening  her 
husband  and  relatives  concluded  that  her  reason  had  been  dethroned, 
and  ever  since  she  had  been  confined  in  a  sanitarium.  Through  her 
incoherent  speech  only  one  thing  is  sure  and  constant,  and  that  is  that 
she  never  again  wants  to  see  her  husband.  More  information  is  not 
given  to  the  conservative  circle  of  her  friends.  All  profess  ignorance 
as  to  the  immediate  cause  of  this  strange  mania,  which  reverses  the  am- 
bition, hope,  and  love  of  a  lifetime. 

Strangely  enough,  within  two  days  after  hearing  this  painful  story, 
a  friend  handed  me  the  Pacific  Medical  Journal  for  January,  lOOG.f 
Therein  I  read  the  following  paragraphs  and  to  me  the  mystery  had  been 

*"The  Sexual  Life,"  p.  127. 

tArticle  by  R.  W.  Shufeldt,  M.D.,  Major  (retired)  Medical  pepartment  of  U.  S.  Army,  and 
Trustee  of  the  Medico- Legal  Society,  of  New  York. 


APPENDIX  257 

solved.  Now,  I  thought,  I  knew  why  one  bride  had  her  love  turned  to 
hate,  her  mind  ruined,  and  why  her  relatives  were  so  shamefacedly  silent, 
lest  some  should  learn  a  useful  lesson  from  their  affliction. 

The  material  portion  of  the  article  reads  as  follows:  "While  upon  this 
point,  I  would  say  that  under  the  so-called  sanctity  of  the  Christian  mar- 
riage untold  thousands  of  the  most  brutal  rapes  have  been  perpetrated, 
more  brutal  and  fiendish,  indeed,  than  many  a  so-called  criminal  rape! 
So  outrageous  has  been  the  defloration  of  many  a  young  girl-wife  by  her 
husband,  that  she  has  been  invalided  and  made  unhappy  for  the  balance 
of  her  natural  life.  There  are  cases  on  record  where  so  violently  has 
the  act  of  copulation  been  performed  that  the  hymen,  being  thick  and 
but  sHghtly  perforated,  death  has  followed  its  forcible  rupture  and  the 
nervous  shock  associated  with  the  infamous  proceeding.  Here  the 
criminally  ignorant  young  husband  and  the  ravisher  are  at  par,  and  no 
censure  that  the  world  can  mete  out  to  them  can  be  too  great." 

And  now,  I  thought,  I  had  received  new  light  on  those  strange  and  not 
infrequent  accounts  one  reads  in  the  newspapers  of  young  women  who 
commit  suicide  during  their  "honeymoon."  Here  another  strange 
chance  led  me  to  a  physician  friend  who  directed  me  to  statements  from 
a  half  dozen  physicians,  all  corroborating  that  of  Dr.  Shufeldt. 

After  reading  these  statements  from  highly  reputable  physicians,  I 
could  no  longer  doubt  that  these  "most  obscene"  books  ever  published 
were  really  most  humanitarian  efforts  on  the  part  of  those  who  perhaps 
had  a  wider  knowledge  than  I  possessed.  If  this  is  "the  worst,"  I  am 
prepared  to  take  chances  on  all  lesser  "obscenity." 

Quite  a  number  of  physicians  have  been  arrested  and  convicted  for 
sending  through  the  mails  information  as  to  venereal  diseases.  One 
of  these  books,  which  serves  as  a  type  for  all,  has  been  thus  described 
by  a  former  assistant  attorney-general  of  the  post  office  department. 
He  says  the  book  "consisted  mainly  of  a  description  of  the  causes  and 
effects  of  venereal  diseases,  and  secondly,  two  circulars,  one  of  which 
described  in  separate  paragraphs  the  symptoms  of  various  venereal  dis- 
eases."    That  was  held  to  be  criminally  "obscene." 

"The  Social  Peril"  is  a  book  dealing  with  venereal  infection,  and  is 
bv  one  of  the  best  professional  moralists  in  America.  Mr.  Comstock 
threatened  him  with  arrest  for  "obscenity^"  partly  for  a  fifteen  page 
quotation  from  a  book  by  Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  "  The  Social  Peril" 
is  suppressed,  for  fear  of  a  criminal  prosecution,  though  other  elements 
finally  culminated  to  accomplish  the  same  end. 

THE    BIBLE   JUDICIALLY   DECLARED   OBSCENE 

One  of  the  early  American  prosecutions  of  note  was  that  of  the  dis- 
tinguished eccentric,  George  Francis  Train,  in  1872.  He  was  arrested 
for  circulating  obscenity,  which  it  turned  out  consisted  of  quotations 


258  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

from  the  Bible.  Train  and  his  attorneys  sought  to  have  him  released 
upon  the  ground  that  the  matter  was  not  "obscene,"  and  demanded  a 
decision  on  that  issue.  The  prosecutor,  in  his  perplexity,  and  in  spite 
of  the  protest  of  the  defendant,  insisted  that  Train  was  insane.  If  the 
matter  was  not  obscene,  his  mental  condition  was  immaterial,  because 
there  was  no  crime.  The  court  refused  to  discharge  the  prisoner  as  one 
not  having  circulated  obscenity,  but  directed  the  jury,  against  their  own 
judgment,  to  find  him  not  guilty,  on  the  ground  of  insanity,  thus,  by 
necessary  implication,  deciding  the  Bible  to  be  criminally  obscene. 

Upon  a  hearing  on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  Train  was  adjudged  in- 
sane, and  discharged.  Thus  an  expressed  decision  on  the  obscenity 
of  the  Bible  was  evaded,  though  the  unavoidable  inference  was  for  its 
criminality. 

In  his  autobiography.  Train  informs  us  that  a  Cleveland  paper  was 
seized  and  destroyed  for  republishing  the  same  Bible  quotations  which 
had  caused  his  arrest  in  New  York.  Here,  then,  was  a  direct  adjudi- 
cation that  parts  of  the  Bible  are  indecent,  and  therefore  unmailable. 
(Here  I  think  Train  must  be  referring  to  the  conviction  of  John  A.  Lant, 
publisher  of  the  Toledo  Sun.) 

In  1895,  John  B.  Wise,  of  Clay  Center,  Kansas,  was  arrested  for  sending 
obscene  matter  through  the  mails,  which  again  consisted  wholly  of  a 
quotation  from  the  Bible.  In  the  United  States  court,  after  a  contest, 
he  was  found  guilty  and  fined. 

Just  keep  in  mind  a  moment  these  court  precedents  where  portions 
of  the  Bible  have  been  judicially  condemned  as  criminally  obscene, 
while  I  connect  it  with  another  rule  of  law.  The  courts  have  often  de- 
cided that  a  book  to  be  "obscene"  need  not  be  obscene  throughout,  the 
whole  of  it,  but  if  the  book  is  obscene  in  any  part  it  is  an  obscene  book, 
\^nthin  the  meaning  of  the  statutes.* 

You  will  see  at  once  that,  under  the  present  laws  and  relying  wholly 
on  precedents  already  established,  juries  of  irreligious  men  could  wholly 
suppress  the  circulation  of  the  Bible,  and,  in  some  States,  thelaws  would 
authorize  its  seizure  and  destruction  and  all  this  because  the  words  "in- 
decent and  obscene"  are  not  definable  in  qualities  of  a  book  or  picture. 
In  other  words,  all  this  iniquity  is  possible  under  present  laws  because 
courts  did  not  heed  the  maxim,  now  scientifically  demonstrable,  viz.: 
"Unto  the  pure  all  things  are  pure." 

Of  course,  the  Old  Testament,  in  common  with  all  books  that  are 
valuable  for  moral  instruction,  contains  many  unpleasant  recitals,  but 
that  is  no  reason  for  suppressing  any  of  them.  I  prefer  to  put  myself 
on  the  side  of  that  English  judge  who  said:  "To  say  in  general  that 
the  conduct  of  a  dead  person  can  at  no  time  be  canvassed ;  to  hold  that 
even  after  ages  are  passed  the  conduct  of  bad  men  can  not  be  contrasted 

*16  Blatchford,  368. 


APPENDIX  259 

with  the  good,  would  be  to  exclude  the  most  useful  part  of  histor)*."* 
I  therefore  denounce  this  lawTaecause  under  it  may  be  destroyed  books 
containing  records  of  human  folly  and  error  from  which  we  mav  learn 
valuable  lessons  for  avoiding  the  blight  from  violating  nature's'  moral 
laws.  Under  our  present  statutes  some  of  the  writings  of  the  greatest 
historians  and  literar\-  masterpieces  have  been  suppressed  and  practically 
all  would  be  suppressed  if  the  courts  should  apply  to  them  impartially 
the  present  judicial  test  of  obscenity. 

This,  then,  is  a  partial  record  of  some  useful  things  coming  under  the 
ban  of  our  censorship  of  literature  which  have  come  under  my  notice. 
Some  other  books  as  valuable  as  the  best  of  those  which  have  been  herein 
mentioned  I  can  not  speak  of,  because  the  authors  and  publishers  prefer 
that  no  mention  should  be  made  of  the  fact.  The  most  injurious  part 
of  this  censorship,  however,  lies  not  in  the  things  that  have  been  sup- 
pressed, as  against  the  venturesome  few  who  dare  to  take  a  chance  on  the 
censorship,  but  rather  on  the  innumerable  books  that  have  remained  un- 
written because  modest  and  wise  scientists  do  not  care  to  spend  their 
time  in  taking  even  a  little  chance  of  coming  into  conflict  with  an  un- 
certain statute  arbitrarily  administered  by  laymen  to  the  medical  pro- 
fession, in  which  profession  are  many  not  overwise  and  sometimes 
fanatical  zealists  in  the  interest  of  that  asceticism  which  is  the  crown- 
ing evil  of  the  theology  of  sex. — Theodore  Schroeder,  in  The  Medical 
Council,  Philadelphia. 


In  the  same  year,  1859,  appeared  Darwin's  "Origin  of  Species"  and 
Mill's  "  Liberty."  Darwin  taught  us  that  all  development  of  organic  life, 
from  the  zoophyte  up  lo  man,  has  resulted  from  the  abihty  of  some  small 
variation  to  preserve  itself  against  the  majority  of  its  species  until  a  new 
species,  incorporating  that  variation,  is  established.  Mill  proved  that 
all  social  progress  depended  on  the  ability  to  develop  mental  and  moral 
variations  from  the  majority.  In  the  two  books  we  may  trace  evolution, 
from  the  sponge  up  to  Shakespeare,  as  an  unbroken  struggle  for  larger 
liberty,  by  differentiation ;  had  it  been  permanently  defeated  even  in  a 
worm,  man  could  not  have  existed ;  had  it  been  permanently  defeated 
in  the  first  human  brain  that  differe<l  from  its  fellows,  in  every  race, 
civihzed  man  could  not  have  existed.  This  is  still  the  law:  Freedom  of 
individual  difference  to  develop  itself  is  the  condition  of  all  progress, 
social,  moral,  and  physical.  If  to-day  any  moral  or  other  differentiation 
in  any  mind  can  be  silenced  or  repressed  by  authority,  or  by  the  fear  of 
it,  all  advance  of  mankind  is  arrested. 

The  greatest  legal  crimes  of  history  have  been  done  in  the  name  of 
morality,  as  in  the  execution  of  Jesus  for  his  "  immorahty  "  in  violating 

♦Rex  vs.  Toyham.  4  T.  R.  129. 


«60  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

the  Sabbath  laws  and  blasplieray  laws  of  his  country.  Many  a  man 
has  similarly  suffered,  whose  immoraUty  is  now  morality. 

By  the  laws  that  have  fullest  public  support,  those  of  obscene  libel, 
it  is  doubtful  whether  any  good  whatever  is  done.  A  few  really  obscene 
fellows  are  caught  and  punished,  but  their  trade  is  benefited ;  their  wares 
are  advertised,  and  the  price  raised  by  such  generally  ineffective  efforts 
at  suppression.  On  the  other  hand,  such  laws,  for  the  sake  of  catching 
a  few  rats,  tamper  with  the  foundations  of  the  social  house.  The  free- 
dom of  thought  and  utterance,  the  foundations  of  social  civiUzation,  are 
tampered  with  by  all  the  laws  that  cannot  be  equally  applied.  No  law 
against  immoral  literature  can  be  framed,  which,  fairly  administered, 
would  not  expurgate  the  Bible  and  the  majority  of  classics.  A  law 
against  indecent  pictures,  equally  applied,  would  invade  every  art  gal- 
lery. Every  such  law  involves  the  submission  to  a  few  persons,  neces- 
sarily unfit,  the  circulation  or  suppression  of  productions  that  may  be 
of  especial  importance  to  mankind.  Nearly  every  work  of  genius  was 
burnt  by  the  common  hangman,  up  to  the  Reformation,  and  many  since 
— ^not  to  mention  the  grand  works  of  art  piously  destroyed  by  the  Puri- 
tans. 

Liberty  can  admit  no  libel  except  on  persons.  That  some  abuse  free- 
dom of  the  press  by  coarse  publications  is  no  more  reason  for  the  sup- 
pression of  that  freedom  than  suicide  is  a  reason  for  suppressing  razors. 
And  although  that  word  "  suppression  "  is  not  applicable  to  the  obscene 
literature  at  which  it  is  mainly  aimed,  it  is  unhappily  applicable  to  ethical 
literature  that  is  much  needed.  Our  literary  censorship  and  inquisition 
are  concentrated  on  one  kind  of  immoraUty — sexual.  This  whole  theme, 
though  of  supreme  importance,  is  by  such  statutes  branded  as  indecent. 
The  greatest  genius,  able  to  announce  the  most  important  discoveries 
on  that  vital  subject — sex — ^might  easily  be  silenced  by  the  liability  of 
his  work  to  accusations  of  indecency.  Where  such  statutes  destroy  one 
obscene  book,  they  prevent  a  hundred  needed  ones  from  ever  being  bom. 
Both  moral  and  physical  science  are  intimidated,  the  real  knowledge  of 
sexual  laws  obstructed,  and  by  this  suppression  the  impetus  is  given  to 
the  obscene  dealer's  trade.  For  such  legal  restrictions  on  moral  themes 
are  felt  most  profoundly  by  moral  people,  by  responsible  thinkers.— 
"Liberty — Our  Lingering  Chains,"  in  The  Open  Court,  December  28, 
1893. 


INDEX 


Act  of  Virginia,  95 

Adams,  J.  Q.,  86 

American  Federation  of  Labor,  197 

Anon,  101 

Appendix,  249 

Areopagitica,  The,  1 

Author,  The,  188 
Baker,  E.  D.,  86 
Banner  of  Light,  215 
Barton,  Lucy,  87 
Bay le,  Peter,  114 
Beccaria,  Cesare  B.,  195 
Beecher,  Henry  Ward,  89 
Bennett,  D.  M.  185 
Bennett,  D.  M.,  The  Case  of,  215 
Bentham,  Jeremy,  38 
Best,  Emma  Wardlaw,  185 
Bibliography,  261 
Blackstone,  Sir  W.,  86 
Bradlaugh,  Charles,  89 
Brady,  Judge  John  R.,  185 
Bronson,  C.  P.,  86 
Brook,  Benj.,  100 
Brooklyn  (N.  Y.)  Eagle,  233 
Brougham,  Lord  H.  P.,  89 
Brown,  T.  L.,  M.  D.,  87 
Buchanan,  Robert,  162 
Buckle,  Henry  Thomas,  226 
Burke,  Edmund,  107 
Burnap,  G.  W.,  91 
Burnett,  Bishop  Gilbert,  87 
Burton,SirR.  F.,  188 
Carrington,  C,  91 
Central  Federated  Union,  New 
York,  229 

Chatfield, ,  90 

Chesterfield,  Lord,  101 
Chicago  Tribune,  The,  185 
Chillingworth,  Rev.  Wm.,  96 


Christian  Union,  186   206 
Colton,  Rev.  C.  C,  92 
Constant,  Benjamin,  86 
Conway,  Moncure  D.,  187 
Cooper,  Prof.  Thomas,  40 
Coryell,  John  Russell,  178 
Crosby,  Ernest,  190,  227 
"Cousin  Beatrice,"  189 
Curran,  John  B.,  90 
Debs,  Eugene  V.,  211,  213 
De  Quincy,  Thomas,  89 
Denver  Riepublican,  202 
Denver  Times,  214 
DeThou,  President,  97 
Detroit  Sun,  191 
Donisthorpe,  Wardsworth,  198 
Drummond,  Sir  William,  87 
Ellis,  Dr.  Havelock,  224 
Emerson,  Ralph  Waldo,  94 
Erskine,  Lord  Thomas,  33 
Evening  Gazette,  (Port  Jarvis)  217 

Explanation  Concerning 

Obscenities,  114 

Eyre,  Lord  Chief  Justice,  89 

Falconer,  ,  87 

Farrar, ,  88 

F.  H.  C,  194 
Fiske,  Prof.  John,  87,  192 
Flower,  B.  O.,  167,  188 
Foote,  Dr.  Edward  B.,  200 
Fox,  Hon.  C.  J.,  99 

Free  Sex-Discussion; 

Briefer  Defenses,  185 

Freund,  Prof.  Ernst,  226 
Friends  of  Free  Inquir}',  30 
Friends  to  the  I^iberty  of  the  I*ress,  81 
Frothingham,  Rev.  O.  B.,  186,  21 
Furneaux,  Phillip,  95 


261 


262 


FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 


Further  Important  Defen- 
ses of  Free  Speech,  20 

Gage,  Matilda  Jaslyn,  86 

Garrison,  Wm.  Lloyd,  102,  211 

Godwin,  William,  111 

Gordon,  P.  L.,  86,  109 

Grave,  Jean,  228 

Greeley,  Horace,  186 

Green,  H.  L.,  86 

Hall,  Rev.  Robert,  31 

Halstead,  Murat,  88 

Hamilton,  Andrew,  104 

Hammond,  J.  H.,  86 

Harman,  Lillian,  186 

Harman,  Moses,  The  Case  of,  210 

Helvetius,  Claude  Adrien,  106 

Hemans,  R.  Ward,  88 

Herbert,  Hon.  Auberon,  225 

Hoar,  Senator  George  F.,  230 

Holyoake,  George  Jacob,  80 

Hughes,  W.  T.,  87 

Hume,  David,  94 

Huxley,  Thomas' Henry,  75 

Independent,  The  (N.  Y.)  234 

Index,  The,  185 

IngersoU,  Robert  G.,  185 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  91,  92 

Jenkins,  U.  S.  Judge,  193 

John,  xviii.  23,  86 

Johnson,  -,  86 

'Junius,"  87 

'Justice,  Dr.  Jeremiah,"  191 
Kamehameha  V.,  87 
Kenyon,  Lord,  88 
Kerr,  Mary  Walden,  211 
Kneeland,  Abner,  86 
ICnights  of  Labor,  187 
Krause,  Dr.  Ernst,  97 
Labor  Council,  San  Francisco,  229 

Laconics  of  Toleration  and 

Free  Inquiry,  86 
Lecky,  W.  H.  H.,  81 
Leland,  Theron  C,  86 

Liberty  of  Conscience  and 
Speechfor  Anarchists,  225 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  86 
Livingstone,  Hon.  Edward,  209 


Locke,  John,  23 
Loughborough,  Lord,  87 
Lowell,  James  Russell,  93 
L}4tleton,  Lord,  87 
Macaulay,  Thomas  B.,   196 
Macfadden,  Bernarr,  193 
Machiavelli,  Niccola,  87 
Mackintosh,  Sir  James,  103 
Mansfield,  Lord,  98 
Marble,  Manton,  88 
Mason,  G.,  87 

Medical  Press  and  Circular,  189 
Mill,  John  Stuart,  44 
Milton,  John,  1 
Minneapolis  Times,  206 
Mitchell,  Dr.  S.  Weir,  188 

Modern  Censorship  of  Ob- 
scenity, The,  149 

Montesquieu,  Baron  de  la,  88 

Moody,  Loring,  88,  190 

Morley,  John,  91 

MuUer,  Max,  87 

New  Haven  (Conn.)  Register,  229 

New  York  Daily  News,  232,  240 

New  York  Evening  Express,  215, 

218 
New  York  Evening  Post,  189,  229, 

230 
New  York  Evening  Telegram,  217 
New  York  Home  Journal,  The,  181 
New  York  Methodist,  The,  198 
New  York  Sun,  186 
New  York  Volks  Zeitung,  222 
New  York  World,  187,  215,  216 
Nordau,  Max,  194 
O 'Council,  Daniel,  225 
O'Connor,  William  Douglass,  208 
Old  Political  Toast,  86 
Open  Court,  The,  259 
Outlook,  The,  (N.  Y.)  238 
Pacific  Medical  Journal,  186,  195 
Paine,  Thomas,  90 
Parton,  James,  87,  216 
Patterson,  James,  96,  185 
Personal  Rights  Journal,  London,  200 
Philadelphia   Public   Ledger,    192 
Philadelphia  Record,  185,  232 
Phillips,  Wendell,  87,  93 


INDEX 


26S 


Physical  Culture,  212 
Poole,  I.  Parrington,  94 
Post,  Louis  F.,  149 
Potter,  Rev.  Horatio,  108 
Price,  Rev.  Mr.,  98 
Public,  The,  207 

Rahel, ,  86 

Raymond,  Henry  J.,  87 

RobinsoU,  Victor,  225 

Rowe,  Nicholas,  90 

Schroeder,  Theodore,  v.,  171,  249 

Shaw,  George  Bernard,  185,  210 

Shelley,  Percy  B.,  88,  89 

Shepard,  Hon.  Edward  M.,  237 

Sheridan,  R.  B.,  93 

Shufeldt,  Dr.  R.  W.,  192 

Smith,  Prof.  Henry,  203 

Smith,  Rev.  Sidney,  205 

Spectator,  The,  225 

Spencer,  Herbert,  76 

Spinoza,  Benedict,  20 

Springfield  (Mass.)  Republican,  231 

Spurgeon,  Rev.  C.  H.,  186 

Stall,  Rev.  Sylvanus,  212 

Star,  The,  San  Francisco,  212,  213 

Stead,  William  T.,  197 

Strickland,  Agnes,  87 

Sumner,  Prof.  W.  G.,  89 

Swift,  Jonathan,  89,  203 

Tacitus,  C,  195 

Taylor,  Hannis,  187 

Taylor,  Rev.  Jeremy,  105 

Taylor,  Rev.  Robert,  90 

Temple,  Sir  William,  92 

Theodosius,  Emperor,  Decree  of,  225 


-,  Preface  to  Milton, 


Thomson,— 

18 

Thomson,  J.,  88 
Tillotson,  Mary  E.,  86 
Tindall,  A.  F.,  201 

Townshend,  ,  88,  94 

Truth  Seeker,  The,  93,  211,  219,  220 
Tupper,  Martin,  Farquhar,  90 
Turgot,  A.  R.  J.,  95 
Turner,  John,  281 
Turner,  Judge,  191 
Turner  Protest  Meeting,  Report,  235 
Tyndall,  Prof.  John,  99 
Unknown  Author,  225 
Valentine,  Alfred  A.,  221 
Volney,  C.  F.,  88 
Voltaire,  M.  de,  28 
Wakeman,  Thaddeus  B.,  199 
Walker,  Edwin  C,  91,  176,  227 
Wardlaw,  Ralph,  D.  D.,  190 
Washington  Capitol,  215 
Watterson,  Henri,  86 
Waugh,  Prof.  William  F.,  204 
Westminster  Re\'iew,  92,  94 
Whitman,  Walt.,  91 
Wilgus,  William  H.,  185 
Wilkes,  John,  M.  P.,  92 
Willard,  Frances  E.,  196 
Winsted,  (Conn.)  Press,  222 
Wollstonecraft,  Marj',  199 
Woman's  Journal,  Boston,  210 
WooUey,  John  G.,  185 
Wortman,  Tunis,  36 
Zenger,  John  Peter,  104 
Zola,  Emile,  86 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Freedom  of  Speech  and  Press  has  been  defended  by 
Theodore  Schroeder,  attorney  for  the  Free  Speech  League, 
in  the  following  magazine  articles: 

Albany  Law  Journal  (Albany,  New  York) 

July,  1906 What  is  Criminally  "Obscene"  ? 

May,  1907 "Obscene"  Literature  at  Common  Law. 

Nov.,  1907 The  Constitution  and  Obscenity  Postal  Regulations. 

April,  1908 The  Historical  Interpretation  of  "Law." 

Aug.,  1908 Varieties  of  Official  Modesty. 

Alienist  and  Neurologist  (St.  Louis,  Mo.) 
Aug.,  1908 Legal  "Obscenity"  and  Sexual  Psychology. 

Altruria  (New  York  City) 
Mar.,  1907 The  Evolution  of  Comstockery. 

American  Journal  of  Eugenics  (formerly  Chicago) 

July,  1907 Opposition  to  Freedom  of  the  Press. 

Sept.,  1907 Why  do  People  Object  to  Sex-Discussion  ? 

Dec.,  1907 Varieties  of  Official  Modesty. 

American  Law  Review  (Boston  and  St.  Louis) 

June,  1908..  .The  Scientific  Aspect  of  "Due  Process  of  Law"  and  Construc- 
tive Offenses. 

Arena,  The,  (Trenton,  N.  J.) 

Dec.,  1906 Our  Vanishing  Liberty  of  the  Press. 

June,  1908 Lawless  Suppression  of  Free  Speech  in   New   York. 

July,  1908 The  Growing  Despotism  of  our  Judiciary. 

Blue  Cfrass  Blade  (Lexington,  Ky.) 

Nov.,  1906 What  is  Criminally  "Obscene"  ? 

Mar.  17,  1907 The  Free  Speech  League  to  the  Rescue. 

264 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  265 

Central  Law  Journal  (St,  Louis,  Mo.) 
Sept.  6,  1907...   On  the  Implied  Power  to  Exclude  "Obscene"  Ideas  From  the 
Mails. 

Jan.  3,  1908 Concerning  Uncertainty  and  "Due  Process  of  Law.'' 

Dec.  18.  1908 Constructive  Offenses  Defined. 

Critic  and  Guide  (New  York  City) 
Oct.,  190G Psychic  Lasciviousness  and  "Purity"   Legislation. 

Government  (Boston) 
Dec.,  1908. The  Judicial  Destruction  of  Freedom  of  the  Press. 

Liberal  Review  (formerly  Chicago) 
Aug.  and  Sept.,  1906.. A  Much-Needed  Defense  for  Liberty  of  Conscience, 
Speech,  and  Press,  with  Special  Reference  to  Sex-Discussion. 

Light,  The,  (La  Crosse,  Wise.) 
Jan.,  1907.  .More  Liberty  of  the  Press  Essential  to  Purity  Propaganda.     An 
address  before  the  National  Purity  Federation. 

Medical  Council  (Philadelphia,  Pa.) 

Jan.,  1909 A  Psychologic  Study  of  Modesty. 

Mar.,  1909 Censorship  of  Sex  Literature. 

Medico-Legal  Journal  (New  York  City) 
Sept.,  1907 Legal  Obscenity  and  Sexual  Psychol(^y 

Mother  EaHh  (New  York  City) 

Dec,  1906 Our  Vanishing  Liberty  of  the  Press. 

Jan.,  1907 On  Suppressing  the  Advocacy  of  Crime. 

June,  1907 An  Unanswered  Letter. 

April,  1908 Our  Progre.««sive  Despotism. 

Pacific  Medical  Journal  (San  Francisco) 
Nov.,  1907 On  Moral  Sentimentalizing. 

Physical  Culture  Magazine  (New  York  City) 

April,  1907 In  Defense  of  Liberty. 

May,  1907 Constructive  "Obscenity"  an  Unconstitutional  Crime. 

June,  1907 Obscenity  and  Witchcraft,  Twin  Superstitions. 

Sept.,  1907 Why  the  Obscenity  Laws  Should  be  Annulled. 

Proceedings,  XV.  Congres  International  de  Medicine  (Lisbon,  Portugal) 
April,  1906 What  is  Criminally  "Obscene"  ? 

Public,  The,  (Chicago) 
May,  15,  1908 Legal  Limitation  upon  the  Use  of  Language. 


266  FREE  PRESS  ANTHOLOGY 

Secular  Thought  (Toronto,  Canada) 

Feb.,  1907 Our  Vanishing  Liberty  of  the  Press. 

Aug.,  1907 Opposition  to  Freedom  of  the  Press. 

Sept.,  1907 Concerning  Obscene  Literature. 

To-Morrow  (Chicago) 

May,  1907 A  Test  Case  on  Obscenity. 

Nov.,  1908. . .  r Our  Literary  Censorship. 

Truth  Seeker,  The,  (New  York  City) 

Mar.,  1908 A  Letter  on  the  Vanni  Case.     (Unimportant.) 

Nov,,  1908 The  Conflict  of  Science  and  Religious  Morality. 

Jan.  16,  1909 The  Right  of  Free  Speech. 

It  is  intended,  as  soon  as  the  work  can  be  completed,  to  publish  a  collection 
of  all  Mr.  Schroeder  's  works  relating  to  the  suppression  of  sex-discussion,  under 
the  title  of  "Obscene  Literatuhe  and  Constitutional  Law." 

FREE   SPEECH   LEAGUE 

120  Lexington  Avenue,  New  York  City. 

Other  articles  in  relation  to  Freedom  of  Speech  and  of  the  Press,  can  be 
found  as  follows: 

Arena,  The,  (Trenton,  N.  J.) 

Oct.,  1906 The  Anglo-Saxon  Crime,  by  the  Hon.  Thomas  Speed  Mosby. 

June,  1908. .  .Denial  of  Free  Speech  in  Massachusetts,  by  the  Rev,  Eliot  White. 
June,  1908..  .The  Sinister  Assault  on  the  Breastworks  of  Free  Government,  by 

B.  O.  Flower. 
July,  1908 Free  Speech  and  Good  Order,  by  Louis  F.  Post. 

Fortnightly  Review  (Great  Britain) 
Mar.,  1884 Blasphemy  and  Blasphemous  Libel,  by  PHtz  James  Stevens. 

Government  (Boston) 
Oct.,  1907 The  American  Postal  Censorship,  by  Louis  F.  Post. 

Harper's  Monthly  (New  York  City) 
Sept.,  1907..  .Decisive  Battles  of  the  Law.     A  Fight  for  Freedom  of  the  Press, 
by  Fredrick  Trevor  Hill. 

North  American  Review  (New  York  City) 

Dec,  1892 A  Blow  at  Freedom  of  the  Press,  by  Hannis  Taylor. 

April,  1904 How  the  United  States  Curtails  Freedom  of  Thought,  by 

Ernest  Crosby, 

Open  Court  (Chicago) 

Oct.,  1900 On  Curbing  the  Spirit  of  Inquiry-,  by  Cams  Sterne. 

Nov.,  1900..  .The  Unshackling  of  the  Spirit  of  Inquiry,  by  Dr.  Ernst  Krause- 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  267 

Physical  Culture  (New  York  City) 

Oct.,  1907 Freedom  in  Literature,  by  Robert  Buchanan. 

During  1907  and  1908  this  periodical  had  numerous  articles  of  less  permanent 
value,  but  designed  to  secure  larger  liberty  of  the  press. 

Public,  The,  (Chicago) 
This  live  weekly  journal  has  published  a  score  or  two  of  brief  but  pointed 
editorials  in  advocacy  of  Free  Speech,  and  is  persistently  spreading  the  alarm 
at  every  succeeding  abridgment  of  freedom  of  speech  and  press. 

Secular  Thought  (Toronto  Canada) 
June,  1908,  et  seq Shall  Speech  be  Free?    by  George  Allen  White. 

Truth  Seeker,  The,  (New  York) 
A  quarter  of  a  century  ago  this  paper  pioneered  the  opposition  against  the 
abridgment  of  sex-discussion.     It  still  publishes  many  article-s   of   minor  im- 
portance. 


The  Meaning  of  Free  Speech  for  Pacifists. 

(A  STATEMENT  BY  THEODORE  SCHROEDER.) 


Theodore  Scbroeder,  attorney  of 
the  Free  Speech  League;  compiler  of 
the  "Free  Press  Anthology";  the  au- 
thor of  "Obscene  Literature  and  Con- 
stitutional Law,"  and  of  "Free 
Speech  for  Radicals" ;  issued  a  state- 
ment for  the  People's  Council  of 
America  giving  his  opinion  of  the 
PaciGsts'  right  to  free  speech.  Mr. 
Schroeder  is  a  high  authority  on  the 
subject  of  free  speech  and  has  publish- 
ed numerous  pamphlets  and  scores  of 
magazine  articles  dealing  with  free 
speech  problems.  It  is  said  that  he 
has  written  more  in  defense  of  free 
speech  than  any  man  living  or  "^dead. 
He  has  published  more  in  defense  of 
unabridged  free  speech  than  all  other' 
writers  in  the  English  language  com- 
bined. 

Mr.  Schroeder  said  in  part: 

1  view  printing  as  but  an  extended 
form  of  speech  and  so  use  the  terms 
free  speech  as  including  freedom  in  all 
modes  of  transmitting  ideas. 

Next  let  me  say  that  I  am  not  a 
good  pacifist,  I  am  not  for  peace  at 
any  price,  but  I  believe  in  free  speech 
even  for  the  pacifists.  To  deny  peo- 
ple the  right  to  hear  pacifists  is  to 
deny  their  right  to  pass  judgment  on 
the  issues  of  peace  and  war. 

I  hope  that  Prussianism  will  not  be 
justified  by  German  success.  I  wish 
the  race  had  developed  sufficient  in- 
terest in  further  democratization  so 
that  Kaiserism  could  be  defeated  at 
its  own  violent  game  and  in  all  its 
forms,  by  a  resistance,  democratic- 
ally begun  and  democratically  con- 
ducted. Perhaps  when  that  is  pos- 
sible it  will  also  have  become  un- 
necessary. I  want  the  Kaiser  beaten 
by  and  for  a  growing  democracy,  not 
by  and  for  the  impairment  of  such 
democracy  as  we  have  achieved. 
More  democracy  depends  as  much  up- 
on the  attainment  and  preservation 
of  free  speech  as  upon  the  destruction 
of  Kaiserism. 

These  are  but  different  essential 
avenues  to  the  goal  of  further  democ- 
ratization.    Therefore   we  should  be 


as  eager  to  fight  for  free  speech  as  for 
the  destruction  of  Kaiserism. 

What  then  should  free  speech  mean 
to  us?  Some  American  courts  have 
adopted  the  definition  of  Blackstone 
and  of  the  British  tyrants  whom  he 
defended.  A  more  intelligent  and 
more  democratic  view  will  lead  to  the 
uncanonizing  of  Blackstone  and  the 
following  of  his  opponents.  For 
centuries  before  our  revolution  the  op- 
ponents of  the  divine  right  of  priests 
and  of  kings  and  of  their  judges  were 
denouncing  the  limits  of  free  speech 
as  enforced  by  the  English  courts  and 
approved  by  Blackstone.  It  was  the 
opinion  as  to  free  speech,  that  as 
advocated  by  these  republicans  and 
dissenters  w^hich  was  meant  to  be 
w^ritten  into  our  constitutions,  not 
the  free  speech  of  the  rulers  by  "di- 
vine-right" as  formulated  by  Black- 
stone. Undemocratic  judges  think 
and  act  otherwise. 

Ataerican  Libertarians 

This  conception  of  free  speech  was 
brought  to  America  by  Roger  Will- 
iams. Through  his  effort  and  that  of 
his  followers,  including  Madison  and 
Jefferson,  this  conception  triumphed 
over  the  puritan  theocracy  and  was 
incorporated  into  our  organic  law^. 

This  is  the  conception  of  free  speech 
for  which  stood  the  Continental  Con- 
gress. These  patriots  said  we  needed 
liberty  of  the  press  to  shame  and 
intimidate  public  officials  into  more 
honorable  modes  of  conduct. 

When  public  officials  observe  their 
oath  to  uphold  the  constitutional 
guarantees  of  free  speech,  and  enough 
persons  will  vigorously  uphold  such 
public  officials,  then  no  one  will  be 
prevented  from  receiving,  even  the 
most  odious  opinion — about  the  most 
obnoxious  subject — expressed  in  the 
most  offensive  manner — by  the  most 
despised  person.  Then  will  speech  be 
ree  and  democracy  hold  sway. 

[Theodore  Schroeder  (Cos  Cob, 
Conn.)  requests  the  courtesy  of  acopy 
of  your  publication  whenever  it  con- 
tains any  of  the  above  material.] 


WHAT  SOME  HAVE  SAID 

ABOUT  THE 

'^ANTHOLOGY" 


Heartily    Commendatory 


CRITIC  and  GUIDE.  (N.Y)  A  worthy 
work,  well  done,  and  deserving  of  much  success. 

THE  PUBLIC.  (Chicago)  The  compi- 
lation is  a  work  well  worth  the  doing  and  well 
done. 

EUGENICS.  The  "Free  Press  Anthology" 
is  the  only  work  of  the  kind  ever  issued.  *  *  ♦ 
Splendid  and  most  useful  work. 

THE  LIGHT.  (LaCrosse.Wis  )  Readers 
of  The  Light  will  be  especially  interested  in  the 
discussion  pretaining  to  the  Sex  Question. 

THE  ONLOOKER.    (Foley,  Ala.)    The 

book  is  the  first  of  its  kind  and  treats  the  subject 
very  throughly  from  Milton  up  to  the  present  time. 

HERALD.  (Tracy,  Minn.)  In  producing 
this  work  Mr.  Schroeder  has  performed  a  marked 
service  for  the  Press  in  particular  and  the  public 
in  general. 


\l 


WISCONSIN  ALUMI.  An  especially  vig- 
orous plea  is  made  in  favor  of  free  sex-discussion, 
and  the  modern  censorship  of  obscenity  receives 
exhaustive  treatment  and  criticism. 

DAILY  CALL.  (New  York)  We  recom- 
mend this  book  for  study  as  well  as  propaganda 
among  thinking  people.  *  *  *  jt  contains  a 
rich  collection  of  discussion  by  noted  writers. 

DAILY  DEMOCRAT.  (Madison, Wise.) 

On  this  subject  Mr.  Schroeder  feels  deeply.  He 
is  a  fearless  writer.  *  *  *  His  "Anthology" 
fills  a  want.  It  covers  the  situtation  quite  fully, 
*  *  *  There  is  an  instructive  index  and  also 
Free  Speech  bibliography  of  great  value. 

THE   BLUE    DEVIL.    (Louisville,  Ky.j 

In  his  labors  in  compiling  this  work  he  has  be- 
stowed upon  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  a 
benefit  that  should  call  forth  the  fullest  apprecia- 
tion from  all  liberty  loving  people,  whether  readers 
or  writers.  *  *  *  This  book  should  be  in  every 
man's  library. 

THE    OPHTHALMOLOGIST.      It  is  a 

work  everyone  ought  to  own;  it  will  awaken  to  the 
dangers  of  permitting  further  encroachments  on  the 
rights  of  freedom  of  throught  and  speech  and  act 
and  press.  *  •  *  Mr  Schroeder  is  a  man  in  a 
million.  This  editor  believes  he  knows  him  pretty 
well  and  indorses  him  heartilv. 


AMERICAN  BUFFET.    (Minneapolis) 

Opportune  and  invaluable  contribution  to  liberal 
literature.  *  *  *  Briefly,  the  work  is  a  classical 
thesaurus  of  the  very  best  things  written  against 
whitened  sepulchre  censorship  and  in  favor  of 
freedom  of  speech  and  freedom  of  printing. 
Wherefore  suppressionists  will  denounce  it  per- 
haps, and  evolutionists  buy,  study,  and  enjoy  it. 

INDIAN  APPEAL  (Calcutta)  It  is  ap- 
preciated by  me  and  many  friends  of  mine  who 
have  read  it.  I  fail  to  understand  how  you  could 
collect  so  many  authorities .  It  is  a  most  valu- 
able collection.  I  have  quoted  only  a  little  in  my 
January  (1910)  number,  but  I  shall  gradually  re- 
publish most  of  it.  (A  letter  from  the  Editor,  who 
is  making  a  good  fight  for  Free  Speech  in  British 
India  ) 

SECULAR  THOUGHT.  (Toronto)  By 
the  publication  of  this  valuable  volume  Mr. 
Schroeder  has  made  a  large  addition  to  the  debt  the 
Liberal  world  owes  to  him  for  his  many  years  of 
vigorous  and  able  work  in  favor  of  free  speech  and  a 
free  press.  Mr.  Schroder's  volume  is  a  mine  of 
weighty  authorities  in  favor  of  entire  freedom  of 
the  press  and  should  be  in  every  Freethinker's 
library. 

NEW  YORK  SUN.  A  mass  of  Literature 
of  great  interest  relating  to  the  freedom  of  the 
press.  ***    It  begins  with  Milton's  "Areopagitica," 


is  followed  by  long  extracts  from  many  authors 
until  it  reaches  Peter  Bavle's  "  Explanation  Con- 
cerning Obscenities,"  which  is  given  in  full.  There 
is  a  chapter  on  liberty  of  speech  for  Anarchists. 
The  volume  is  a  very  useful  compendium  of  al- 
most everything  of  importance  that  has  been 
written  in  favor  of  free  speech. 

WILSHIRE'S  MAGAZINE(New  York) 

Mr.  Schroeder's  compilation  is  exceedingly  time- 
ly and  should  prove  particularly  useful.  *  *  * 
Mr.  Schroeder  has  seemingly  collected  and  se- 
lected the  most  forcible  and  trenchant  utterances 
on  these  subjects  and  from  the  pens  and  speeches 
of  the  world's  most  famous  writers  and  orators.*** 
We  can  not  too  strongly  recommend  this  excellent 
and  timely  volume,  and  sincerely  hope  that  it  may 
secure  the  circulation  it  so  well  merits. 

YALE  LAW  JOURNAL.  It  would  be  hard 
to  find  a  work  on  a  topic  of  more  absorbing  in- 
terest to  the  average  lawyer.  ***  Here  is  found*** 
the  expression  of  opinions  of  master  minds  of  all 
times.  *  *  *  The  book  is  a  valuable  work  of  re- 
ference for  any  library,  being,  as  it  is,  the  crystal- 
lization of  the  free  thought  of  the  centuries.  It 
shows  a  scholarly  research  and  a  quiet  dignity  of 
treatment  and  it  might  be  read  with  profit  even  by 
those,  whose  profession  or  tastes  place  them  in  a 
position  to  mould  or  influence  that  public  opinion 
which  should  find  expression  in  the  country's  laws. 


MOTHER  EARTH.  Most  of  the  essays 
compiled  in  the  Anthology  are  classics  in  the 
purest  sense  and  will  never  become  popular,  as  we 
understand  the  term.  They  are  imperishable, 
however,  and  will  remain  mines  wherein  the 
student,  thinker,  or  orator  may  quarry  with  the  as  f 
surance  of  finding  gems  of  priceless  value.  *  *  *  .] 
If  any  one  thinks  even  this  fight  [against  blasphemy 
laws]  has  been  fought  and  won  it  is  well  to  re- 
member that  persecution  for  blasphemy  under  the 
term  "obscenity"  is  not  at  all  uncommon  *  *  *  It 
puts  in  compact  form  the  best  thought  of  several 
centuries  on  the  most  vital  question  affecting 
man's  welfare,  the  thing  that  differentiates  us  from 
the  lower  animals — the  right  to  think,  and  thinking, 
act. 

SUNDAY  GAZETTEER.  (Denison, 
Tex.)  It  should  be  found  on  the  shelves 
of  every  public  library  and  in  the  hands  of 
every  American  who  loves  liberty  and  is  pat- 
riotic enough  to  stand  up  and  defend  the 
constitutional  right  of  every  man  and  woman 
to  freely  discuss  on  the  rostrum  and  in  the  press 
any  and  all  questions— political,  social,  religious, 
and  any  other,  bearing  on  the  welfare  of  the  in- 
dividual or  the  race.  *  *  *  Mr.  Schroeder  has 
accomplished  a  good  work  by  bringing  out  this  vol- 
ume; over  three  hundred  well  known  authors, 
public  men,  and  writers  are  quoted,  and  there  is  a 
bibliograpy  of  magazines  some  fifty  in  number  con- 
taining articles  in  defense  of  freedom   of  speech 


and  press,  most  of  them  written  by  Mr. 
Schroeder.  [But  not  reproduced  in  the  "Free 
Press  Anthology."] 


Doubtful    or   Qualified 


THE  DIAL.  (Chicago)  Extracts  ranging 
from  Milton's  "  Areopagitica  "  and  Mill  on 
"Liberty"  to  modern  apologists  for  the  frank  dis- 
cussion of  matters  of  sex  and  the  open  preaching 
of  Anarchism. 

HUMANITARIAN  REVIEW.  (Los 
Angeles)  The  work  is  important  as  a  book  of 
reference,  containing,  as  it  does,  the  opinions  re- 
garding freedom  of  speech  and  press  of  a  large 
number  of  reputable  people,  from  sages  to  cranks. 

CENTRAL  LAW  JOURNAL.  The  vol- 
ume contains  some  excellent  matter.  *  *  *  Other 
things  the  author  includes  in  regard  to  "Censor- 
ship of  Obscenity,"  "Free  Sex  Discussion, ""Lib- 
erty of  Speech  for  Anarchists,"  would  have  im- 
proved his  performance  in  producing  a  book 
by  their  absence. 

SALT  LAKE  TRIBUNE.  Unrestraint 
pleaded  for.  *  *  *  The  general  drift  of  this  book 
is  a  pleading  for  greater  liberty  in  the  discussion 


of  matters  usually  treated  in  a  secretive  and  hid. 
den  manner,  and  the  transmission  of  the  like 
through  the  United  States  Mails.  *  *  *  Sec.  IV. 
is  a  very  entertaining  "Explantion  Concerning 
Obscenities"  by  Peter  Bayle  who  wrote  about  1690; 
who  it  must  be  confessed  wrote  with  great  force, 
learning,  and  ingenuity  upon  the  subject.  *  *  * 
There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  there  is  a* good 
deal  of  reason  in  much  of  the  complaint  voiced 
in  this  book. 


Hostile 


THE  GREEN  BAG.  (Boston  law  magazine). 
Obviously  the  e.xistance  of  such  a  volume  as  this 
is  to  be  explained  only  by  those  qualities  of  tem- 
perament which  array  some  men  in  irreconcilable 
conflict  with  social  conventions  *  *  *  We  cannot 
recommend  the  volume  as  deserving  the  readers' 
attention  or  as  worthy  of  the  great  principle  which 
it  purports  and  utterly  fails  clearly  to  set  forth. 


intHN  MtfjIijNAL  UbMAMY  l-AULI 


A     000  650  948     3 


J 


